User:MinisterForBadTimes/Drafts
Significance
[edit]In Greek, and indeed European history, the Greco-Persian Wars were events of major significance. A large number of historians hold that, had Greece been conquered, the Ancient Greek culture which forms the basis of much of "western civilization" would never have developed (and, by extension, western civilization per se).[1][2][3] Whilst this may be an exaggeration (it is obviously impossible to know), it is clear that even at the time the Greeks understood that something very significant had happened.[4] Their victories in the Greco-Persian Wars marked a something of a watershed for the Greeks, propelling Greece from being a fractious and backward land to the centre stage of European history; "their victory endowed the Greeks with a faith in their destiny that was to endure for three centuries, during which western culture was born".[5][6] This was particularly true for the young Athenian democracy, showing what might be achieved through unity and self-belief. Their victory at the Battle of Marathon marked the start of a 'golden age' for Athens, during which Athenian culture became pre-eminent in the Hellenic world.[7] The role of Athenian culture in western society famously prompted John Stuart Mill to declare that "the Battle of Marathon, even as an event in British history, is more important than the Battle of Hastings".[8]
For the Persians, the defeat of their invasions of Greece was significant, though probably less than the Greeks like to imagine it. In his play The Persians (premiered in 472 BC), the Athenian playwright Aeschylus envisaged the collapse of the Persian Empire resulting from the failure of their second invasion. In reality, given its sheer size, the resources of the empire were barely scratched by the expedition, and the loss of the Aegean, Thrace and Ionia (only recently aquired or re-aquired) did little harm to the strength of the empire.
Militarily, there was not much in the way of tactical or strategic innovation during the Greco-Persian Wars. For the phases of the war that we have details for, one commentator suggests that it seems to have been something of "a soldier's war" (i.e. it was the soldiers rather than generals that won the war).[9] Thermopylae is often used as a good example of the use of terrain as a force multiplier;[10] whilst Themistocles's ruse before Salamis is a good example of the use of deception in warfare.[11] The major lesson of the invasion, reaffirming the events at the Battle of Marathon, was the superiority of the hoplite in close-quarters fighting over the more-lightly armed Persian infantry. [12][13] Taking on this lesson the Persian empire would later, after the Peloponnesian War, start recruiting and relying on Greek mercenaries.[14]
Legacy
[edit]The fame of Thermopylae is thus principally derived, not from its effect on the outcome of the war, but for the inspirational example it set.[15][16] Thermopylae is famous because of the doomed heroism of the rearguard, who facing certain death, remained at the pass.[17] Ever since, the events of Thermopylae have been the source of effusive praise from many sources; e.g.
"...the fairest sister-victories which the Sun has ever seen, yet they would never dare to compare their combined glory with the glorious defeat of King Leonidas and his men" [18]
A second reason is the example it set of free men, fighting for their country and their freedom:
"So almost immediately, contemporary Greeks saw Thermopylae as a critical moral and culture lesson. In universal terms, a small, free people had willingly outfought huge numbers of imperial subjects who advanced under the lash. More specifically, the Western idea that soldiers themselves decide where, how, and against whom they will fight was contrasted against the Eastern notion of despotism and monarchy — freedom proving the stronger idea as the more courageous fighting of the Greeks at Thermopylae, and their later victories at Salamis and Plataea attested."[1]
Whilst this paradigm of "free men" outfighting "slaves" can be seen as a rather sweeping over-generalization (there are plenty of counter-examples), it is nevertheless true that many commentators have used Thermopylae to illustrate this point.[19]
- ^ a b Hanson, pp. 12–60. Cite error: The named reference "hanson" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ Strauss, pp. 1–294.
- ^ Holland, pp. xvii–xix.
- ^ Holland, pp. xvi.
- ^ Holland, pp. xvi–xvii.
- ^ Fuller, pp. 11–32.
- ^ Holland, p. 138.
- ^ Powell et al., 2001
- ^ Lazenby, pp. 257–258.
- ^ Eikenberry (1996)
- ^ Lazenby, pp. 248–253.
- ^ Holland, pp. 358–359.
- ^ Lazenby, p. 256.
- ^ Xenophon, Anabasis
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
hnet
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Lazenby, p150
- ^ Holland, p xviii
- ^ Michel de Motaigne, quoted in Holland, p xviii
- ^ Lazenby, pp248–253