Comments on: Marathon: Attack on the Run http://www.historynet.com/marathon-attack-on-the-run.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Sun, 19 May 2013 22:40:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Dino Kr. http://www.historynet.com/marathon-attack-on-the-run.htm#comment-802653 Dino Kr. Sun, 20 May 2012 04:03:23 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683404#comment-802653 This has been a very interesting discussion about my favorite book of this year. And definitely the best analysis of the Athenian war machine which brought about the Marathon victory. Mr. Lacey, thanks for finally putting to print the Marathon story from the view of a military historian. Works by others seem to miss the accomplishments of the Athenian military in the days after Klisthenis's return after the 508 BC revolution. The Athenian 506 victories over the combined forces of Thebes, Chalkis and the Spartan led Peloponnesian League force are nothing but spectacular, and sadly overlooked. In my view, most historians, Herodotos included, were not military men and it shows in their analysis of events. No military force defeats two others in one day an conducts an amphibious assault after the first with out training, planing and leadership. Not to mention the fact that this same force had just faced off the vaunted Spartans who conveniently chose not to fight. (Must have been religious festival time again. ) Also, right before Marathon, Athenians forces fight the combined forces of Aigina supported by 1000 Argos volunteers and beat them. Yet, your run of the mill historians ignore all this and claim that Athenians at Marathon were amateurs who beat the hapless Persians because Miltiadis was such a genius. This mentality is not derived only from ignorance of military maxims. The Spartan myth of invincibility and the lack of appreciation of Persian sophistication are also at play. Not to mention the fact that Miltiadis was not present during the great Athenian victories, so he could not have been the mastermind of the Athenian military model. Kalimachos on the other hand was probably in all the previous battles and most likely the illusive commander of the 506 campaigns. He is definitely on the short list. But my money is on him. In analysis after analysis, the premise is that the Athenians could not have been that good, because the Spartans were better. The Spartan military was good, but in my view a bit overrated. Fighting rebelling helots is not exactly something to brag about. Kleomenis showed some military intellect in defeating the Argos force in 494 BC, but after him, it takes many decades and Persian gold for the Spartans to defeat Athens. Way too many historians and people in the movie and gaming industries are all too eager to perpetuate the Spartan invincibility myth. It is wrong to interpret the military defeats at the hands of Greeks as proof that Persia was inferior in war making and even culturally. Persia of the 6th and 5th century was the preeminent power of their day, militarily, financially and in land mass. They didn't achieve their empire by being backward, or lacking intellect. Their military was good enough to defeat army after army of nation after nation from Lydia, India to Egypt. That is also not happenstance. The army of any nation is tailored to the terrain it has to fight in and defend. The Persian cavalry, archer, light infantry mix had been tailored to fight other forces of that type in similar terrain. Persian armies had faced and defeated hoplite forces before, therefore it was unlikely that the generals of Persia felt threatened or intimidated by Athenians. Their army mix had been good enough to defeat the Greeks of Ionia and also Eretria, just before Marathon. In some way, Persia came to Marathon with the wrong battle doctrine for the situation. Generals tend to do that time and time again. Persian generals used to victory on their terms went with what had worked for them before in no different fashion than US Generals in 60's Vietnam, or British Generals in the Revolutionary war. The Athenians won, because they fought on their terms, on terrain that suited their battle plan and doctrine, and not the plan of their enemy. Not because their “western ways” were better than “eastern” ones. The argument is flawed and too simplistic. I refuse to be draw in to it. The Greeks and Persians of the 5th century have little in common with the current nationalities and east/west differences. I visited Marathon as a child in the mid sixties. It was less populated then, and to be honest, not very impressive. But now I find it the most fascinating place I have visited and wish I had more memory of it than a beach and a “pile of dirt”. Prof. Lacey, thanks for your work. I recommend it as the defining work on the subject. This has been a very interesting discussion about my favorite book of this year. And definitely the best analysis of the Athenian war machine which brought about the Marathon victory.
Mr. Lacey, thanks for finally putting to print the Marathon story from the view of a military historian. Works by others seem to miss the accomplishments of the Athenian military in the days after Klisthenis's return after the 508 BC revolution. The Athenian 506 victories over the combined forces of Thebes, Chalkis and the Spartan led Peloponnesian League force are nothing but spectacular, and sadly overlooked. In my view, most historians, Herodotos included, were not military men and it shows in their analysis of events. No military force defeats two others in one day an conducts an amphibious assault after the first with out training, planing and leadership. Not to mention the fact that this same force had just faced off the vaunted Spartans who conveniently chose not to fight. (Must have been religious festival time again. )
Also, right before Marathon, Athenians forces fight the combined forces of Aigina supported by 1000 Argos volunteers and beat them. Yet, your run of the mill historians ignore all this and claim that Athenians at Marathon were amateurs who beat the hapless Persians because Miltiadis was such a genius.
This mentality is not derived only from ignorance of military maxims. The Spartan myth of invincibility and the lack of appreciation of Persian sophistication are also at play. Not to mention the fact that Miltiadis was not present during the great Athenian victories, so he could not have been the mastermind of the Athenian military model. Kalimachos on the other hand was probably in all the previous battles and most likely the illusive commander of the 506 campaigns. He is definitely on the short list. But my money is on him.
In analysis after analysis, the premise is that the Athenians could not have been that good, because the Spartans were better. The Spartan military was good, but in my view a bit overrated. Fighting rebelling helots is not exactly something to brag about. Kleomenis showed some military intellect in defeating the Argos force in 494 BC, but after him, it takes many decades and Persian gold for the Spartans to defeat Athens. Way too many historians and people in the movie and gaming industries are all too eager to perpetuate the Spartan invincibility myth.
It is wrong to interpret the military defeats at the hands of Greeks as proof that Persia was inferior in war making and even culturally. Persia of the 6th and 5th century was the preeminent power of their day, militarily, financially and in land mass. They didn't achieve their empire by being backward, or lacking intellect. Their military was good enough to defeat army after army of nation after nation from Lydia, India to Egypt. That is also not happenstance. The army of any nation is tailored to the terrain it has to fight in and defend. The Persian cavalry, archer, light infantry mix had been tailored to fight other forces of that type in similar terrain. Persian armies had faced and defeated hoplite forces before, therefore it was unlikely that the generals of Persia felt threatened or intimidated by Athenians. Their army mix had been good enough to defeat the Greeks of Ionia and also Eretria, just before Marathon. In some way, Persia came to Marathon with the wrong battle doctrine for the situation. Generals tend to do that time and time again. Persian generals used to victory on their terms went with what had worked for them before in no different fashion than US Generals in 60's Vietnam, or British Generals in the Revolutionary war.
The Athenians won, because they fought on their terms, on terrain that suited their battle plan and doctrine, and not the plan of their enemy. Not because their “western ways” were better than “eastern” ones. The argument is flawed and too simplistic. I refuse to be draw in to it. The Greeks and Persians of the 5th century have little in common with the current nationalities and east/west differences.
I visited Marathon as a child in the mid sixties. It was less populated then, and to be honest, not very impressive. But now I find it the most fascinating place I have visited and wish I had more memory of it than a beach and a “pile of dirt”.
Prof. Lacey, thanks for your work. I recommend it as the defining work on the subject.

]]> By: JHGlass http://www.historynet.com/marathon-attack-on-the-run.htm#comment-790720 JHGlass Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:06:12 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683404#comment-790720 New to this forum, not a military/history scholar or authority on any level, but greatly appreciate the topic on many levels. Apart from the heroic/tragic tales of men locked in mortal combat that are the hallmarks of every armed conflict throughout history, I have always enjoyed gaining a greater understanding of the historical, cultural, strategic and deeply human impact warfare imposes on the development and direction of civilizations, understanding fully that we only stand here today to discus this topic because our collective direct descendants throughout history have survived wars as either combatants or collateral. Case in point, in more recent history I owe my very existence to the fact that a GG Grandfather on either side of the conflict, North and South, survived the American Civil War. Though I am well acquainted with the actions and outcome of the Battle of Marathon, thank you Jim Lacey all the same for your vivid and dramatic recounting of this event. Thank you also Mr. Hazarpatish and Mr. Merkatatis for your spirited debate while bringing your collective knowledge and personal points of views into the discussion... Feels like you're fighting the 2nd Battle of Marathon right here in the forum. Hats off to all, will look forward to reading future stories/posts! JHG New to this forum, not a military/history scholar or authority on any level, but greatly appreciate the topic on many levels. Apart from the heroic/tragic tales of men locked in mortal combat that are the hallmarks of every armed conflict throughout history, I have always enjoyed gaining a greater understanding of the historical, cultural, strategic and deeply human impact warfare imposes on the development and direction of civilizations, understanding fully that we only stand here today to discus this topic because our collective direct descendants throughout history have survived wars as either combatants or collateral. Case in point, in more recent history I owe my very existence to the fact that a GG Grandfather on either side of the conflict, North and South, survived the American Civil War.

Though I am well acquainted with the actions and outcome of the Battle of Marathon, thank you Jim Lacey all the same for your vivid and dramatic recounting of this event. Thank you also Mr. Hazarpatish and Mr. Merkatatis for your spirited debate while bringing your collective knowledge and personal points of views into the discussion… Feels like you're fighting the 2nd Battle of Marathon right here in the forum.

Hats off to all, will look forward to reading future stories/posts!

JHG

]]> By: Kevin http://www.historynet.com/marathon-attack-on-the-run.htm#comment-780874 Kevin Wed, 09 Nov 2011 17:54:15 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683404#comment-780874 John, Nice reply. I am enjoying the thread. John,
Nice reply. I am enjoying the thread.

]]> By: John Merkatatis http://www.historynet.com/marathon-attack-on-the-run.htm#comment-780826 John Merkatatis Wed, 09 Nov 2011 12:53:14 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683404#comment-780826 Hazarpatish, I)Thanks for the apology,which is accepted, 2) Now that I know what you don't know (rather important-you will see) I will tackle the subject from another angle and I will site for you any authorities on the subject that you might be able to consult or verify. When you talk about systems,it is obviously a later view from the actual event;at the time of the event we speak about 'modus operandi' not 'systems' example:Cyrus attacks Croesus of Lydia,against all war conventions of that time,in full winter achieving total surprise,the dream of every commander,catches Croesus napping so to speak,first chooses the battlefield(naturally) and anihilates the hastilly assembled Lydian army.Tactical manoevre of the First Order,but,not a system.Systems deal with entrenched operational 'habits' ie mode of fighting which is one of them,maintained through centuries of practice and approval of the system through success. Systems,in radically different geographical regions are basically dictated by a) the nature of the land(mountainous,temperate,desert,etc ) and b)climatic conditions(you can't wear thick woolen tunics when marching in the desert...remember that!) Estern Systems:centred in Asia,later and in Africa, includes active not marooned populations-those that Europe has come or would come to contact with;naturally excludes Chinese Japanese and Mongols,the later appearing in the sceen and studied in the context of 13th century AD. The land in Asia is characteristic of open spaces and increased temperatures at least during the day;that necessitates the use of horses to cover those distances,and to use as a weapon of war.The climate favours light and comfortable materials for clothing that facilitate fast movement,but it also makes the arrow a very potent missile,as a result we find predominance of what we call missile cavalries that hit and run with the action repeared back and forth until the enemy is demoralised,disorganized,bleeding and ready for slautgher. The defeated enemy runs,the victor has ample means (mobile troops) to follow with a relentless persuit of his enemy.Due to the nature of land war chariots are used extensively even later than in other parts of the world since they remain effective.Locally we see also camel horse and in the east elephants.Land obstacles are few and engineering is well advanced to overcome them. Now I have a meeting,I will proceed with all your queeries this evening please bear with me,I promise to make it interesting for you. Hazarpatish,
I)Thanks for the apology,which is accepted,
2) Now that I know what you don't know (rather important-you will see)
I will tackle the subject from another angle and I will site for you any authorities on the subject that you might be able to consult or verify.
When you talk about systems,it is obviously a later view from the actual event;at the time of the event we speak about 'modus operandi'
not 'systems' example:Cyrus attacks Croesus of Lydia,against all war conventions of that time,in full winter achieving total surprise,the dream of every commander,catches Croesus napping so to speak,first chooses the battlefield(naturally) and anihilates the hastilly assembled Lydian army.Tactical manoevre of the First Order,but,not a system.Systems deal with entrenched operational 'habits' ie mode of fighting which is one of them,maintained through centuries of practice and approval of the system through success.
Systems,in radically different geographical regions are basically dictated by a) the nature of the land(mountainous,temperate,desert,etc
) and b)climatic conditions(you can't wear thick woolen tunics when marching in the desert…remember that!)
Estern Systems:centred in Asia,later and in Africa, includes active not marooned populations-those that Europe has come or would come to contact with;naturally excludes Chinese Japanese and Mongols,the later appearing in the sceen and studied in the context of 13th century AD.
The land in Asia is characteristic of open spaces and increased temperatures at least during the day;that necessitates the use of horses to cover those distances,and to use as a weapon of war.The climate favours light and comfortable materials for clothing that facilitate fast movement,but it also makes the arrow a very potent missile,as a result we find predominance of what we call missile cavalries that hit and run with the action repeared back and forth until the enemy is demoralised,disorganized,bleeding and ready for slautgher. The defeated enemy runs,the victor has ample means (mobile troops) to follow with a relentless persuit of his enemy.Due to the nature of land war chariots are used extensively even later than in other parts of the world since they remain effective.Locally we see also camel horse and in the east elephants.Land obstacles are few and engineering is well advanced to overcome them.
Now I have a meeting,I will proceed with all your queeries this evening
please bear with me,I promise to make it interesting for you.

]]> By: Hazarpatish http://www.historynet.com/marathon-attack-on-the-run.htm#comment-780741 Hazarpatish Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:20:44 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683404#comment-780741 Finally, about "eastern" and "western" military systems... It is a modern view, I repeat, a modern, highly biased view. I have only seen it be applied by authors who think the Persian army was a mob of conscripted peasants. Tactics differ? Hardly. Unless you want to call the Macedonian army of Philip and Alexander an eastern one. Before you go into the whole "oh, but they were free-er and they were trained and they were disciplined". Well, the Achaemenid troops were too. Including the majority of the "levies" (who were in fact soldiers trained in the way that fitted the local infrastructure, like the Egyptians and Assyrians, who were excellent heavy troops, and Mazaka/Saka Tigrakhauda, who were excellent heavy cavalry, not to mention Carians, Lycians and all Iranians). "Oh, but there's the fundamental difference of..." you're going to say. What is the difference then? Yes, the early hoplite phalanx was not like the Persian armies - it was a group of social elites battling other social elites in a semi-ritualized way. But the Macedonian army was tactically the same as any Achaemenid army. It had a large force of spearmen, to hold off enemies in the center, more flexible infantry on the flanks, and the knock-out punch was to be delivered by cavalry, with the support of light infantry. To be honest, I think it was heavily influenced by the "easterners". Finally, if any author can group Persia, India, China and the Eurasian steppe into a single entity, they need to be put into a mental institution. Or simply look beyond the Graeco-centric world view that is still persistent today (although I must gladly say, that among more respected scholars it is starting to fade away). P.S. Now that my profanity has drawn your attention, I sincerely apologize for using it. Finally, about "eastern" and "western" military systems…

It is a modern view, I repeat, a modern, highly biased view. I have only seen it be applied by authors who think the Persian army was a mob of conscripted peasants.

Tactics differ? Hardly. Unless you want to call the Macedonian army of Philip and Alexander an eastern one. Before you go into the whole "oh, but they were free-er and they were trained and they were disciplined". Well, the Achaemenid troops were too. Including the majority of the "levies" (who were in fact soldiers trained in the way that fitted the local infrastructure, like the Egyptians and Assyrians, who were excellent heavy troops, and Mazaka/Saka Tigrakhauda, who were excellent heavy cavalry, not to mention Carians, Lycians and all Iranians).

"Oh, but there's the fundamental difference of…" you're going to say. What is the difference then? Yes, the early hoplite phalanx was not like the Persian armies – it was a group of social elites battling other social elites in a semi-ritualized way. But the Macedonian army was tactically the same as any Achaemenid army. It had a large force of spearmen, to hold off enemies in the center, more flexible infantry on the flanks, and the knock-out punch was to be delivered by cavalry, with the support of light infantry. To be honest, I think it was heavily influenced by the "easterners".

Finally, if any author can group Persia, India, China and the Eurasian steppe into a single entity, they need to be put into a mental institution. Or simply look beyond the Graeco-centric world view that is still persistent today (although I must gladly say, that among more respected scholars it is starting to fade away).

P.S. Now that my profanity has drawn your attention, I sincerely apologize for using it.

]]> By: Hazarpatish http://www.historynet.com/marathon-attack-on-the-run.htm#comment-780740 Hazarpatish Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:11:43 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683404#comment-780740 *99.9% *99.9%

]]> By: Hazarpatish http://www.historynet.com/marathon-attack-on-the-run.htm#comment-780739 Hazarpatish Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:11:23 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683404#comment-780739 Pydna? The fact that 99.9 if not more of the casualties came during the rout. Pydna? The fact that 99.9 if not more of the casualties came during the rout.

]]> By: John Merkatatis http://www.historynet.com/marathon-attack-on-the-run.htm#comment-780681 John Merkatatis Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:46:46 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683404#comment-780681 Hazarpatish, What has Pydna got to do with it,and the Romans??? Hazarpatish,
What has Pydna got to do with it,and the Romans???

]]> By: John Merkatatis http://www.historynet.com/marathon-attack-on-the-run.htm#comment-780680 John Merkatatis Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:40:39 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683404#comment-780680 Hazarpatish, In military language Hazarpatish divisions or brigates are the main units of the army,of course they have smaller subdivisions,for admin purposes,but the army,when we speak about the field(tactics) moves and manoevres on the command given to its main units by the high command and the main units take care of their component parts be those called battalions,regiments,Cohorts,Moras or what have you...so your remark is is lack of understanding as to the word 'division' One more point to make Hazarpatish:I just wish to ask if you have decided to turn abusive? I just received an alert in my e-mail flaging your comment which is very offensive "eastern military systems my ass " and just above you call me 'ignorant' this is an unpardonable breach of etickette and a show of bad manners!first I demand an apology-and a small remark here:if you don't like the term "Eastern military Systems" pass your 'profane' remarks to Erick Mauraise author of "Introduction to Military History" through the Swiss Army Directorate of Historical Studies send them your complaint about the "silly" authors they have to even dare write something mr Hazarpatish doesn't appreciate because itv contrasts with his history outlook and wait for the answer!to add salt to injury,this view,as one can easily find out is shared by an overwhelming number of Institutions including the English and the other side of the Atlantic. Do you teach in some Institution or other that after years of research you can hold so strong views? Hazarpatish,
In military language Hazarpatish divisions or brigates are the main units of the army,of course they have smaller subdivisions,for admin purposes,but
the army,when we speak about the field(tactics) moves and manoevres on the command given to its main units by the high command and the main units take care of their component parts be those called battalions,regiments,Cohorts,Moras or what have you…so your remark is
is lack of understanding as to the word 'division'
One more point to make Hazarpatish:I just wish to ask if you have decided to turn abusive? I just received an alert in my e-mail flaging your comment which is very offensive "eastern military systems my ass " and just above you call me 'ignorant' this is an unpardonable breach of etickette
and a show of bad manners!first I demand an apology-and a small remark here:if you don't like the term "Eastern military Systems" pass your 'profane' remarks to Erick Mauraise author of "Introduction to Military History" through the Swiss Army Directorate of Historical Studies send them your complaint about the "silly" authors they have to even dare write something mr Hazarpatish doesn't appreciate because itv contrasts with his history outlook and wait for the answer!to add salt to injury,this view,as one can easily find out is shared by an overwhelming number of Institutions including the English and the other side of the Atlantic.
Do you teach in some Institution or other that after years of research you can hold so strong views?

]]> By: Hazarpatish http://www.historynet.com/marathon-attack-on-the-run.htm#comment-780675 Hazarpatish Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:31:41 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683404#comment-780675 Also, "western military systems" should include Celts, Germanians and Native Americans as well. Finally, there was no inherent inferiority or superiority in either of "these groups". The "east" could produce excellent heavy infantry - notably the Egyptians, Anatolians and Assyrians, and the "west" could produce fine cavalry - notably Celts, Iberians and medieval knights. Dismissing the medieval era as nothing to speak about is simply ridiculous, 1000 years thrown into the dump just because they sound less glorious? Just because "the east" was more advanced? Finally, You do realize that all we know of the Greeks comes from Greek sources. So you can rest assured 100% that there were defeats we will never hear about. After all, Ionia was part of the Persian empire, as was Cyrenaica and Cyprus. P.S. I am sorry to use profanity, but saying Persians, Indians and Chinese are a single group militarily and that they practiced the same way of war is simply retarded. Also, "western military systems" should include Celts, Germanians and Native Americans as well.

Finally, there was no inherent inferiority or superiority in either of "these groups".

The "east" could produce excellent heavy infantry – notably the Egyptians, Anatolians and Assyrians, and the "west" could produce fine cavalry – notably Celts, Iberians and medieval knights.

Dismissing the medieval era as nothing to speak about is simply ridiculous, 1000 years thrown into the dump just because they sound less glorious? Just because "the east" was more advanced?

Finally, You do realize that all we know of the Greeks comes from Greek sources. So you can rest assured 100% that there were defeats we will never hear about. After all, Ionia was part of the Persian empire, as was Cyrenaica and Cyprus.

P.S. I am sorry to use profanity, but saying Persians, Indians and Chinese are a single group militarily and that they practiced the same way of war is simply retarded.

]]>