I have important news to tell you today, in which every Greek city-state will be taken to extreme heights of this new era. We have won the Battle of Issus, my friend! Finally, the day has come where we will be able to show Persia, our power and wisdom. Alexander is a key component to our success; we would have never survived without his courage, dedication, and wisdom. Before the war began, he had ridden to the front lines, where he named each solider and reminded us of the permanent values that will follow if we win. Although the Persian army stood before us with massive soldiers and weapons, it was Alexander’s quick reasoning and verdict that allowed us to react swiftly. Alexander’s tactics proved how he can lead and unite the soldiers when faced with difficult opposition. …show more content…
The defeat of the Persians was due to the battle being fought on a narrow coastal plain. The flat coastal plain proved to be a valuable advantage for us. This meant that Darius was unable to use his superior numbers to gain any sort of tactical advantage. Alexander’s ability to seize on these advantages led to such a decisive defeat. Alexander’s quick reasoning allowed him to turn his army around to face the Persians behind them.
In the end, tens of thousands of Persians, Greeks, and other Asiatic soldiers were killed. However, King Darius, that coward fled the battlefield in panic abandoning his mother, wife and even his children. Even though, they are of his descendants, Alexander treated them with respect because they pledged their loyalty to him. Alexander’s objective was to get revenge on the Persians for the violent campaign against Greece and for conquest. Today he was able to do both while ensuring the Macedonians
Alexander adopted Persian governing practices, but he had little use for Persian culture. According to his Greek biographer Plutarch, he considered himself "a governor from God and a reconciler of the world." He hoped that Greek culture would, through his actions, permeate all of Asia, inspiring its peoples to pursue virtue, excellence, and truth. This heroic idealism blended with practicality in his plan to develop the Tigris, Euphrates, and Indus rivers as commercial waterways linking all of Asia These undertakings promised to be long and difficult, however, and Alexander was an impatient man. His soldiers' unwillingness to proceed past the Indus was a great disappointment to him, for which he compensated by throwing his own festivals and celebrations. Alexander showed early leadership qualities. When King Phillip invaded Thrace, he left Alexander in charge of Macedonia at the age of 16. During his father's absence, one of the Thracian tribes, the Maedi, rebelled. Alexander was able to mobilize an army and put down the rebellion. In 336 B.C, Alexander's father was assassinated, putting Alexander on the throne at the age of 20. Shortly after this, Alexander left Macedonia with his armies to put down rebellions in the countries of Illyria, Thrace and Greece, all of which had previously been conquered by King Phillip. Alexander then moved his armies into Asia Minor and began to conquer the peoples there. Among the countries conquered by Alexander were Syria, Phoenicia and
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/text?lookup-trm+ov+8.5&vers=engligh&browse+1). In conclusion, the Greeks defeated the Persians in the Persian Wars aided by unforgettable acts of heroism, divine support, and most importantly, Greek unity.
Darius had an advantage over Alexander the Great, he had more troops, better resources, and he chose the battle field. Although Darius had the advantage he was not as smart as Alexander. Alexander had good communication with his troops; he planned according, in addition he was well organized before the battled. He did not stray away from his plan he stuck to it. Alexander troops were heavily armed they moved in formation, and they were shield with their long spears they stayed close together and moved in formation. In addition he did not have all his troops engaged in the battle at once he planned an awesome attack strategy that won him and his troops the war.
Alexander the Not so Great:history through Persian eyes by Prof Ali Ansari Paragraph 1 Page
Bury, J. B.; Russell Meiggs (2000). A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great
The stunning Greek defeat of the Persians, the specter of which lurks behind the events of the Peloponnesian Wars, was for Herodotus proof of the superiority of Hellenic form of government and way of life, and Herodotus ends his history at this pinnacle of Greek history. Thucydides then accepts the task of chronicling Greece’s unraveling from a position as the dominant power of the Mediterranean, and a center of cultural, technological, and political development to the final result of the Peloponnesian Wars—a fractured, demoralized, and dependent Greece that lies wide open to foreign conquest. This result is, for Thucydides, apparent from the beginning of the conflict. Greece can only dominate when the balance of power between Athens and Sparta is maintained, and the destruction of either is tantamount to the destruction of the whole. An accurate understanding of the national characters of Athens and Sparta makes it clear which of the two will ultimately be the victor of a long, arduous military struggle, but the same understanding of national character makes it equally apparent that the one which can dominate militarily cannot lead Greece. The speeches made at the First Lacedaemonian Congress emphasize not only the character of the two nations in conflict, but more broadly, the inevitability of Hellenic demise as a result of this conflict.
There are times in history that something will happen and it will defy all logic. It was one of those times when a few Greek city/states joined together and defeated the invasion force of the massive Persian Empire. The Greeks were able to win the Greco-Persian War because of their naval victories over the Persians, a few key strategic victories on land, as well as the cause for which they were fighting. The naval victories were the most important contribution to the overall success against the Persians. The Persian fleet was protecting the land forces from being outflanked and after they were defeated the longer had that protection. While the Greeks had very few overall victories in battle they did have some strategic victories. The Battle of Thermopylae is an example of a strategic success for the Greeks. The morale of the Persian army was extremely affected by the stout resistance put up by King Leonidas and his fellow Spartans. The Greeks fought so hard against overwhelming odds because of what they were fighting for. They were fighting for their country and their freedom. They fought so hard because they did not want to let down the man next to them in the formation. Several things contributed to the Greeks success against the Persian invasion that happened during the Second Greco-Persian War.
The main reason for Persian failures between 490 B.C. and 479 B.C. was not because the Persians made more mistakes than the Greeks did, but instead because the Greeks had superior armour and weapons and tactics. During certain battles the geography was also a disadvantage to the Persians and helped in their loss.
While Simon Hornblower acknowledges the limitations of the alliance, he is perhaps the strongest proponent of the importance of Persia’s financial support. He recognizes that Sparta’s victory at Notion in 407 was as much the result of poor Athenian leadership as Persian money, and that this financial backing did not prevent the disastrous loss at Arginusai the following year. Despite these statements, Hornblower is adamant that “The Peloponnesian War had been won because of Persian money.” P.F. Rhodes continues this reasoning in A History of the Classical Greek World, 478-323. He contends that Persia’s assistance helped Sparta effectively combat Athens at sea, and allowed them to remain engaged until Athens could no longer continue. These theories all center around the question of why Sparta won the war. However, if we flip our perspective and examine why Athens lost the war, Persia’s money becomes considerably less significant. It is to this examination that we now turn our
In the Summer of 331 B.C. Alexander the Great and his army of Macedonians defeated the well maned Persian army after their leadership, king Darius III, left in an act of cowardice. However, Jona Lendering says in his book Alexander de Grote. De ondergang van het Perzische rijk “ It wasn't Alexander's courage or Darius' cowardice that decided the fate of the Persian Empire, it was the signs that were seen in the
Athens was an important contributor to the Persian wars. Its tremendous naval power along with their smart and innovative leaders, Miltiades and Themistocles, brought victory in situations which had thought to be impossible. An example of this is the battle at Marathon during the second invasion. The Athenians met the Persian?s large army among the hills, where their cavalry would ineffective, which was their strongest quality. Miltiades, informed by some Ionians that the Persian cavalry was absent, convinced Callimachus to strike. The battle had resulted in a win for Athens, without the help of Sparta and showed the superiority of the Greek hoplites compared to their Persian counterparts. Miltiades, knowing that the Persian?s strongest troops were placed in the middle and absence of cavalry, devised a strategy to encircle their enemy by strengthening their wings. This strategy is what brought victory, and in turn, was a moral victory for the Athens and eradicated the impression that Persians were unbeatable. Th...
The Battle of Salamis is said to be one of the most important battles in all of history. It was a naval battle fought between the massive Persian army and smaller Greek army in the Bay of Salamis in 480 BCE. This battle was one of the many battles that were a part of the Greco-Persian war. This paper will explore the events leading up to the battle, the battle itself, including advantages and disadvantages both sides had on one and other, and finally will discuss the affects the result of this battle had on each side. Surprisingly, the much smaller Greek army defeated the Persians at the Battle of Salamis. How did this happen, one may ask? Although the Persians appeared to have the military advantage in this battle, particularly in terms of sheer size and numbers, the Greeks successfully defeated them with the help of their leaders, tactics, and many Persian blunders.
In the years following the Persian Wars in 479 B.C., Athens had come out on top being the most dominantly powerful of any Greek city with a navy that had superior strength that increased day by day. The Athenians “ruled with heavy-handed, even brutal force as well as with reason” (Kagan 2). This was due largely to the fact that Athens had a stable and effective government, which only increased their advantage in proving themselv...
...s of the war itself, there are a number of crucial points which set the course of the tide, and I have tried to illustrate those which I consider to be most important and influential. In any case, it seems that if Athens would have continued with the policy of Pericles, she might not have been so weakened by the destruction of her superior naval forces, which, it seems, can largely be accounted for by Alcibiades and his supporters.
The human need for conflict is a constant factor in everyday life and has been demonstrated throughout our readings of the Romans and the Greeks. As seen in Herodotus’ The History, tales of battles and wars are described in epic proportions and are a constant theme throughout his writings. Herodotus plays into the aspect of fighting, as well as the cultural belief of Greece that war was a necessary part of society and should be valued by the citizens. By heightening the actions of soldiers in battle, war is encouraged as a way of life because it is emphasized as a way of being remembered and praised for committing honorable deeds and protecting Greece. Herodotus incorporates numerous acts of valor like those seen in The Battle of Thermopylae in his writings in order to provide the ultimate connection between Greek behavior and warfare as a representation of what it meant to practice good citizenship. Herodotus incorporates the Role of the Gods, male behavior, and describing the Persians in The History in his attempt to portray the historic event of the 300’s last stand against the Persians in a way that Greeks would look up to and hopefully want to follow.