Many battles and conflicts, which have occurred throughout the course of history, have been responsible for shaping the civilizations of the 21st century. One of the most significant events is that of the Battle of Salamis, a naval battle, which occurred in September 480 BCE, between the invading Persians and the united city-states of Greece. It has been documented and argued by historians, both ancient and modern, as the decisive victory, which led to the Greek city-states being able to defeat the might of the Persian Empire. This triumph shifted the course of the Persian Wars in favour of the Greeks, which fundamentally changed the course of history (Hegmann:n.d.). After the Battle of Thermopylae, the Greeks were at the mercy of the powerful Persian Empire.
The significance of the Ionian Revolt also dictated and contributed to the course of other battles that followed the revolt due to the new discoveries the states made of their opposing armies. Also, the potential economic and social consequences of the Ionian Revolt should be accounted for. Therefore, the significance of the Ionian Revolt can be argued to be both crucial, yet minor in some aspects. It can be argued that the Ionian Revolt played a significant role in regards to acting as a catalyst for the Persian War that would follow. Herodotus notes that when Darius was told of the Athenians’ actions in Sardis, he vowed to punish those who were to blame and he instructed the servant to recite ‘Sire, remember the Athens.’ Thus, Herodotus alludes that the implications of the Ionian Revolt acted as a spark to ignite the hatred and seek for revenge in Darius to the Athenians which can be reflected by the Persian Wars.
Assess the contribution of speeches in Thucydides’ work. Thucydides’ introduces his work by presenting it as a “history of the war fought against each other by the Peloponnesians and the Athenians”. However his work was not a simple narrative of the events that unfolded, Thucydides wanted his work to be judged as useful because he believed that history repeats itself. He wrote his work largely to explain the fall of the Athenian empire. Thucydides’ work, however, was not simply a book written about Athens as the protagonist which was defeated by its foolish over-ambition, he wrote about the Athenians and Spartans with similar objectivity, acknowledging both their weaknesses and virtues.
Persia was experiencing difficulties with Naxos between the democrats and oligarchs, the oligarchs fled to Miletus, where they asked Aristogoras for help to reinstate themselves in Naxos. Possibly seeking to further his own power and favour with Persian masters he insisted he suggest Naxos to be captured this would open way for Persian dominance over the Cyclades and across the Aegean. This back fired when 200 triremes and a force of Persians and Ionians failed to besiege Naxos. Aristogras feared Persian reprisals for the Naxos attack now sought to extricate himself from a difficult situation, he decided to lead a full scale Ionian Revolt.’ (Herodotus, Histories, Book V, 29-37 and 97-107) The Aid of Athens and Eretria sent ships and man to aid the Ionians under the command of Melanthius. The Athenians had some sympathy with the Ionians but were also concerned by the activities of a former Tyrant at the court of Darius, they also looked to establish trade within the Black Sea.
The book “On justice, power and human nature” by writer Woodruff, examines the history of the Peloponnesian war as well as exploring the actions of the political government. His analysis carries various speeches from important figures that were present during the war. In the speech of Archidamus, Thucydides expresses what the king conveyed to the attendees in the congress of Sparta. I will argue how the speech of Archidamus expresses that being unprepared and to charge against the high resourceful Athenian population would be unwise, harmful and dangerous. His decision for expressing these words is mainly based on historical facts.
The first of Alexander’s motivations is that of his “inheritance”. We know from Arrian (1971, p.42), that Phillip had already set out his campaign against Persia and that he was not just after land, but was after retribution. His campaign slogan of “freeing the Greeks” and “punishing the Persians” (Lane Fox, 1974) highlights not only his desire to appear the hero, but to also seek revenge for what had previously been done to his people at the hands of Xerxes. As Tarn (1948) writes, Alexander believed that the campaign and the conquering of Persia was his inheritance. Just as his father had begun the campaign, Alexander would see to it that it was completed.
Installed to govern were pro-Spartan Harmosts, all supported by a garrison of troops who served under the orders of Lysander. Discontent between Lysander’s Aristocratic tyranny of government and the imperialised Aegean states saw various acts of rebellions including the launch of Thrasybulus’ coup against the Thirty Tyrants, resulting in their overthrowing and re-instalment of democracy to Athens. This acts of rebellion resulted from Lysander’s oppressive foreign policy. Furthermore, the naivety of Lysander was highlighted in his involvement in Persian politics by backing the campaign of Cyrus to overthrow his brother Artaxerxes and seize the Persian thrown. This ineffectiveness of the campaign was twofold; it resulted in the lost of Persian subsides, which would now fund revolts by Thebes and Corinth against Sparta, and for a time broke allied ties between Sparta and Persia who had helped them ascend to Imperial
It all started when King Darius decided to conquer the tiny Greek city states of mainland Greece. King Darius sent messengers to ask for presents of Greek earth and water, which would be a sign that the Greeks would accept rule by the Persians. Instead, the Greeks threw the messengers in wells and pits, and told them that was their earth and water. King Darius was furious and sent soldiers and cavalry by ship to Greece, and they assembled themselves on the plain of Marathon. Miltiades, a great general for Greece, convinced other Greek commanders that the Greeks should fight the Persians at Marathon.
In 331 B.C 1 Alexander defeated the Persian king at the battle of Gaugamela. Discuss the preparations made by Darius and Alexander before the battle, the tactics used by each commander and the reasons for Alexander’s success. What were the immediate outcomes for Alexander? The Battle of Gaugemela was ultimately one of the turning events in Alexander the Great’s short but tumultuous life. His decisive victory did not just come down to pure luck, however; both Alexander and his Persian opponent Darius had painstakingly made preparations in order to ensure that his numerical superiority could be used to its full advantage.
The Greco-Persian wars, the great struggle between the United Greek Poleis against the growing Persian Empire of the East. Sparta, one of the Major greek Polis was responsible to a great extent for the victory of the Greeks over the Persians. Sparta not only participated in several crucial battles of the war such as Thermopylae and Plataea, but also contributed to the Greek Political and cultural idea of unity. Along with the physical strength of the Spartan forces, their leadership at battles such as “Salamis” and “Plataea” allowed the Greeks to be victorious in the Greco-Persian Wars. The battle of Marathon, the first and instigating battle of the Persian wars of 490Bc, was fought and won by the forces of Athens and Plataeans, without the help of the Spartans.