Leadership and Battle Strategy in Persian War - Coursework Example

Introduction The Persian wars fought among several Greek s happen to be a significant chapter of the human history of war and peace. This series of battles are also indicative of the strategies and policies the leaders of those times deemed important for the success of a war. This paper provides an insightful study into the various aspects of Persian wars, most importantly the leadership and battle strategies. The paper basically investigates into the strategies, weapons and leadership that led to the success and victory of one state over the other and vice versa. The thesis statement encompassing this paper is the "leadership and battle strategies in Persian Wars". Persian Wars- Leadership And Battle Strategies The Persian wars started with a series of battles within the Greek states, predominantly on the part of Persia against several Greek cities in view of the Persian King's strategy of expanding his kingdom and rule. The Persians waged a war against the Athens and Erectia because of the support these states provided to Ionians and other Greek cities in their fight against Persia. The Persian leader at that time was King Darius I, the Great King of Persia who succeeded in seizing control of almost all the Greek states other than the Athens and Strata (Pomeroy 187-188). The preeminent of all the battles fought in the Persian war was the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC that shaped the destiny of Greek empire. This war not only determined the extent of influence exerted by Persia or Athens politically, but also the prevalence of democracy in Greece. The history of Greece would certainly have been different had the Persians won the battle of Marathon against the Athenians. The Athenians were not as strong as Persians with regard to the infantry, war resources and weapons. The Persians were great in number as compared to the Persians, but were endowed with war discipline and an effective military system along with an efficient leadership. Weir propounds that the strategy Greeks employed in their war with Persians was to evoke insurgency among the people who were inside the Persian Empire so as to subvert their strength. The Athenian commander, Miltiades, had also once remained a Persian commander who betrayed the King of Persia. The Greeks, at that time, also excogitated an effective military system that enabled their soldiers to move about the narrow mountains swiftly. They had also developed in terms of weapons, shields and armors that were used by the fighters in the course of war. The primary weapons that the Greek army mostly carried were spears while short swords were also kept as secondary weapons of war (11). The use of traitors in a battle against the enemy seems to be the most eminent strategy engaged by leaders even in the ancient Greece. Miltiades who once happened to be a tyrant in Greek states and also a commander of Persian army, joined hands with Athenians after his partition with the King of Persia. He proved to be one of the prominent leaders in the series of Persian wars who played an effective role in motivating the Athenians to drive the Persians out of the state. When faced with the dilemma of attacking the powerful Persian army, the Athenian leaders had different opinions as to risk a fight or not. Some leaders were in favor of fighting the Persians in an open attack while others were reluctant of taking the risk. The thing that was at stake was not only the lives of Athenians, but also more importantly, the emerging democracy that had the ability to free the Greek world from the claws of tyranny. Miltiades, who was strongly against the Persians, incited the commanders to attack the Persian infantry so as to defend the democracy of Athens (Weir 10). Miltiades also persuaded the other Athenian leaders to go in the favor of attack in order to save Athens from the tyrannical rule of the King Darius as in Persia. Persians had to confront the two strongest opponents of all the Greek States viz. Athens and Strata as a consequence of attacking Athens. Darius, the Great King of Persia, was fully aware of the strength of Athenian warriors and the anticipated threat of Strata joining hands with the Athenians against Persia. Hence, he planned to fight a psychological war with Athenians so as to vanquish them successfully before they could get any support from Spartans. For this purpose, the King also reached some Athenians who were against Miltiades, one of the Athenian commanders, and incited them on treachery against Athens. The war was completely planned with a strategy to send a small number of soldiers to invade and occupy the state Eretria first where the Athenian traitors would help the soldiers to enter the Athens. However they could not crush the infantry of Athens (Weir 13). The leadership of Persia was evidently in the hands of King Darius who sent Dantis as a commander in the battle of Marathon to the Athens. He worked on the plan of Darius but was unable to trounce the Athenian infantry because of their effective battle strategy. On the day of battle, Miltiades was the commander of Athenian forces and successfully used his people to beat the Persian army despite its strength. He had worked as a commander in the Persian army; therefore he was well aware of the strategies and military actions adopted by Persians in a battle. Being cognizant of the anticipated Persian moves, Miltiades proved to be an important leadership figure in the battle that led the defeat of Persia. The Athens won the Marathon battle against the Persia due to the efficient strategy of supporting the weakest infantry points with the help of the stronger ones. Weir suggests that although the Persians tried for more than once with small as well as great number of soldiers and armory, however they completely lost the war when different Greek states combined their forces against them (15). The union of major Greek states against the Persian tyranny in the name of the King's claim to democracy happened to be detrimental for the King Darius and Xerex's plan to conquer the Athenian state on the basis of much greater strength of army and war resources. The plan failed to work as several Greek states revolted against the Persian expansion strategy. Kagan mentions that the battle strategy among the Greek states suddenly changed after the threat of Persia subdued. The coalition of Greek states as a consequence to perceived threats of any attacks from the King of Persia. The unity of these states drove the Persia towards failure, but as soon as the threats elapsed, the fate of Greek empire rested on the rivalry of two states viz. Athens and Sparta leading to the Thucydides, another battle in the series of Persian wars. This battle marked the downfall of Athens' political influence over the Greek states owing to the miscalculations and poor strategies of Pericles concerning the Athenian ideals of democracy. Athens and Sparta happened to be two close allies in their battle against the Persians. However, free from the anticipation of any perceived attacks, the two states started to establish their influence in the politics of Greece. The ideas and practices of these states conflicted with each other resulting in another battle. Hence, utilizing the enemy in the face of other more powerful enemy groups also happened to be a battle strategy in the Persian wars. Athens, at that time, was the predominating of all the major Greek states including Sparta. However, the state lost its influence and political power because of over certitude of Pericles in determining the right political strategy and the strength of Athenian democratic ideology. Conclusion This paper discusses the different aspects of the Persian wars including the battle strategies and leadership that proved to be evident throughout the course of wars, most importantly the battle of Marathon, that transformed the political destiny of the Greek states. The Athenians explicitly won the war due to the efficient leadership of Miltiades, a Persian traitor a commander willing to avenge the King and the people of Persia. Miltiades was also a commander of Athenian infantry who pursued and persuaded others to adopt a strategy to openly attack the Persian army so as to save the democratic leadership in the state. Despite the weakness of Athenian infantry as compared to the Persian army, the state managed to win the war due to its effective military discipline and positioning. Albeit the leadership of Persia, the Great King Darius had forced out the authorities in a series of wars against several Greek states but when these states became united, the Persia had to accept its defeat. Similarly, the Thucydides between the Athens and Sparta after the battle of Marathon reflects a weak leadership and its impact upon the state's then political supremacy over the entire Greece. Sparta won this battle that marked its gradual development as an influential Greek states. However, the democracy that tended to be at stake in the Persian wars remained secure in the battle of Marathon and the King Darius' ambitious strategy to expand could not be successful. Works Cited Kagan, Donald, The Peloponnesian War, Viking: New York, 2003 Pomeroy, Sarah et al., Ancient Greece: A Political, Social and Cultural History, Oxford University Press: New York, 1999 Weir, William, 50 Battles That Changed the World: The Conflicts That Most Influenced the Course of History, New Page. Books: NJ, 2001 Bibliography Hooker, Richard, Ancient Greece: The Persian Wars, The Delian League, 1996 Hornblower, Simon, The Greek World, 3rd ed., Routeledge: New York, 2002 Sekunda, Nick, Marathon 490 BC: The First Persian War. Campaign 108. Oxford: Osprey, 2002 Woodruff, Paul, On Justice, Power, and Human Nature: The Essence of Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, Hackett Publishing Company: Indianapolis, 1993 Read More