The Battle of marathon was fought in 490 BCE. In which the Greek army was able to overcome the larger army of Persians. The Greeks were able to defeat the Persians due to their weapons and amour, battle tactics and Persian lack of something. This paper will examine the battle decisions of the Greeks at marathon. How there armour and weapons were more beneficial during the battle. Marathon was the first battle where the Greeks were able to defeat the Persians. It was a huge turning point in history if Persia would have defeated the Greeks they would have had control over Athens and then most likely the rest Greece.
The Greek hoplites had an advantage over the Persians due to their armour and weapons. The hoplites were heavily armoured infantry …show more content…
They used their traditional phalanx formation with their hoplites moving as one to create an impenetrable wall. There is a generally consensus of the number of the Greek and Persian army’s. Histories say there was approximately ten thousand Greek Hoplites and the Persian outnumbered them two-three to one. The decision of the Greeks to fight is very unintuitive. When the Athenians and Parthians arrived at the bay of marathon they set up in a defensive position above the flat marshes. This was a very good position for the Greeks as the Persian cavalry would have a big advantage over the heavily armoured hoplites in the mashes. Neither the Greeks nor the Persians wanted to make a move because they would have to give up their strategic position. “Marathon was the place in Attica most suitable for riding horses” (Herodotus) There was a stalemate that lasted an unclear amount of days. The Greeks attacked because they sensed an opportunity. The Greeks spread their army across as wide as the Persian Ranks. This way they would not be surrounded by the Persians. “The center, where the line was weakest, was only a few ranks deep, but each wing was strong in numbers.” (Heordotus) In order to match the Persian ranks the Greeks made the center of their lines thinner but maintained a strong number on the wings. This was a risk because if the center broke to easily the Greeks would be surrounded. Thisbold strategy
The Greek hoplites had an advantage over the Persians due to their armour and weapons. The hoplites were heavily armoured infantry …show more content…
They used their traditional phalanx formation with their hoplites moving as one to create an impenetrable wall. There is a generally consensus of the number of the Greek and Persian army’s. Histories say there was approximately ten thousand Greek Hoplites and the Persian outnumbered them two-three to one. The decision of the Greeks to fight is very unintuitive. When the Athenians and Parthians arrived at the bay of marathon they set up in a defensive position above the flat marshes. This was a very good position for the Greeks as the Persian cavalry would have a big advantage over the heavily armoured hoplites in the mashes. Neither the Greeks nor the Persians wanted to make a move because they would have to give up their strategic position. “Marathon was the place in Attica most suitable for riding horses” (Herodotus) There was a stalemate that lasted an unclear amount of days. The Greeks attacked because they sensed an opportunity. The Greeks spread their army across as wide as the Persian Ranks. This way they would not be surrounded by the Persians. “The center, where the line was weakest, was only a few ranks deep, but each wing was strong in numbers.” (Heordotus) In order to match the Persian ranks the Greeks made the center of their lines thinner but maintained a strong number on the wings. This was a risk because if the center broke to easily the Greeks would be surrounded. Thisbold strategy