why did athenians win battle of marathon?

Answer 1

Battle of Marathon
The Battle of Marathon (490 BC) was the culmination of King Darius I of Persia's first major attempt to conquer the remainder of the Greeks and add them to the Persian Empire, thereby securing the weakest portion of his Western border.
Background
Hippias, tyrant of Athens, had been expelled in 510 BC by his people, with the assistance of Cleomenes I, King of Sparta. He fled to the court of Darius to seek assistance.
With the failure of the Ionian Revolt (499 BC - 494 BC), Darius was intent on subjugating the Greeks and punishing them for their part in the revolt. In 492 BC Darius dispatched an army under his son-in-law, Mardonius. This army reduced Thrace and compelled Alexander I of Macedon to submit again to Persia. However, in attempting to advance into Greece much of the fleet was wrecked in a storm and Mardonius was forced to retreat to Asia.

Darius learned through Hippias that the Alcmaeonidae, a powerful Athenian family, were opposed to Miltiades and ready to help reinstate Hippias. They were also ready to bow to Persian demands in exchange for being excused for their role in the Ionian Revolt. Darius wished to take advantage of this situation to take Athens, which would isolate Sparta and hand him the remainder of the Greeks. In order for the Athenians to revolt, two things would need to happen: the populace would need encouragement to revolt, and the Athenian army would have to leave Athens.

In order to accomplish the first, Darius planned to take Eretria, which would offer little resistance, and whose fall would terrify the Athenians. To accomplish the second, Darius's army, now led by Artaphernes, son of a satrap of Sardis, and Datis, a Median admiral (Mardonius had been injured in the prior attack), was dispatched in early September 490 BC to land at the Bay of Marathon and threaten an overland attack towards Athens. This army probably numbered at most 25,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry, since it was transported entirely by sea.

The Persian transports, escorted by the fleet, sailed from Samos to Naxos and reached Carystus on the south coast of Euboea. From there they sailed up the Euboean channel to Eretria, where their aims became clear to the Greeks.

The Eretrians sent an urgent message to Athens for help. The Athenians agreed, but realized they needed more help. They sent a courier to the Spartans and probably a messenger to the Plataeans. The courier arrived in Sparta on September 9, and the Spartans agreed to help, but pointed out that they could not go to war until the Carneian festival ended on the full moon of September 19-20.

Artaphernes took part of the Persian army and laid siege to Eretria. The remainder of the army crossed with Datis and landed in the Bay of Marathon. The Athenian army, numbering 9,000-10,000, under Callimachus the polemarch and accompanied by his ten tribal generals marched north from Athens. When Callimachus heard that the Persians had landed in the Bay of Marathon, he wheeled right and reached the valley of Avlona and encamped his army at the shrine of Heracles. One thousand Plataeans joined him there.

Since it was obvious from the Persians' disposition that they did not intend to march to Athens, the Athenians waited for the Spartans. For eight days the armies peacefully confronted each other.

Battle
On the ninth day it became known to the Athenians that Eretria had fallen by treachery. This meant that Artaphernes was now free to move, and might attack Athens. On September 21, the Athenian army went out to face the Persians. This was probably a combined decision by the generals, although Herodotus reports that they were rotating days of command and that Miltiades was in charge at this point, since he had a large part in persuading the others to do so. According to Herodotus, five Strategoi voted for the move and five voted against it, with Callimachus, the Polemarch, casting the deciding vote in favor of attack.

Since the bulk of Persian infantry were archers, the Greek plan was to advance in formation until they reached the limit of the archer's effectiveness, the "beaten zone," or roughly 200 yards, then advance in double time to close ranks quickly and bring their heavy infantry into play. This meant that they would almost certainly end up fighting in disordered ranks, but this was preferable to giving the Persian archers more time. The Greek center was reduced to possibly four ranks, from the normal eight, in order to extend the line and prevent the Persian line from overlapping the Greeks. The wings maintained their eight ranks.

The Greek heavy infantryman, or hoplite, was much more heavily armored than the Persian troops and the pike the Greeks carried gave them greater range than the short spears and swords of the Persian foot soldier. The Persian advantage came from the bow that most of them carried (the advantage was partially cancelled by the superiority of Greek armor and numbers).

As the Greeks advanced, their wings drew ahead of the center, which was under heavy fire from the archers. As they closed some Persians broke through the resulting gaps and drove the center back in rout. The Greek retreat in the center, besides pulling the Persians in, also brought the Greek wings inwards, shortening the Greek line. The inadvertent result was a double envelopment, and the battle ended when the whole Persian army, crowded into confusion, broke back in panic towards their ships and were pursued by the Greeks.

Herodotus records that 6,400 Persians died for the loss of approximately 192 Athenians.

Aftermath
As soon as Datis had put to sea, the Athenians marched to Athens. They arrived in time to prevent Artaphernes from securing a landing. Seeing his opportunity lost, Artaphernes set about and returned to Asia. The Spartans arrived afterwards, toured the battlefield at Marathon, and agreed that the Athenians had won a great victory.
The Greek upset of the Persians, who had not been defeated on land for many decades, caused great problems for the Persians. Seeing that the Persians were not invincible, many peoples subject to their rule rose up following the defeat of their overlords at Marathon and order was not restored for several years.

The common enemy of Persia helped provide some solidarity to the disunited Greek city-states. The victory helped solidify the view that Greeks were "civilized" and Asians were merely "Barbarians."

Conclusion
Marathon was in no sense a decisive victory over the Persians. However, it was the first time the Greeks had bested the Persians on land, and "their victory endowed the Greeks with a faith in their destiny which was to endure for three centuries, during which western culture was born." (J.F.C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World.) In this Fuller echoes John Stuart Mill's famous opinion that the Battle of Marathon was more important an event for British history than the Battle of Hastings.
According to the Greek historian Herodotus, who was born in the year of the battle, an Athenian soldier named Pheidippides ran from Athens to Sparta to ask for assistance. This event was later turned into the popular legend that Pheidippides ran from Marathon to Athens. The International Olympic Committee estimates the distance from the Marathon battlefield to Athens as 34.5 km (21.4 miles). There is no historical evidence for this popular version of the legend, which first appears in Plutarch's On the Glory of Athens in the 1st century AD. The story became the basis for the modern marathon athletics event. The race is run over a distance of 42.195 km (26.2 miles).

External links
Discovery article about Marathon date controversy and Pheidippides' death
General article

Answer 2

I agree in general with Tissapahrnes. The Spartans did not want to help the Athenians, as it was mentioned. If I remember correctly the Athenians did not like the response from Sparta at all.

I want to make one point though. The Persians wanted to re-establish their control over the revolted areas and they succeeded. Athens and Eretria was for revenge and indeed they wanted to conquer Athens even though in the past they just used bribes and Tyrants to take control. My argument is that Athens had initially submitted to Persia but later changed its mind, Athens helped in the Ionian revolt and the Athenians had destroyed one Persian Temple (unfortunately I don remember the God or the place, maybe Sarda or something). The Persians also destroyed Miletus and Athens was really connected with Miletus. One more argument is that the Persian fleet went from island to island to reach Eretria and Athens and they did not harm any of the islands making the point that they targeted Athens.

I can add one factor which helped the Athenians win. The generals of the Persian army, Datis and Artaphernes. Especially Artaphernes was totally inexperienced. On the other hand Miltiadis was very experienced and had given many battles.

Some people also suggest that the Athenians chose to attack when the Persian cavalry was not ready for combat (watering the horses). This is not fully verified but it can explain why the cavalry fought only in the last stages of the combat. One more explanation is that the Athenians waited until the Persian start to get into the ships to go and attack Piraeus. In other words they just attacked the rear-guard of the Persian army. I tend to believe that the Athenians caught the Persians off-guard. Also the Athenians placed the battlefield close to the sea so there will not be much space for the cavalry.

Moreover the Athenian’s moral was higher. They knew that if they did not win everybody in Athens would probably die the same day. This is why they could run a full 40klm from marathon to Athens and wait the other half of the Persian army that had decided to attack Athens from Piraeus (of course they were very well trained).

One more thing is the unity of the army. Darius was very powerful and his generals were actually afraid of him. They did not agree with his tactics or this march. It is obvious that with this mentality the effectiveness of your decisions is not that great. Moreover the Athenians had ten generals and everybody agreed on this plan. This agreement made everybody to follow. The Greek plan was very radical and had many dangers. They actually left Athens with on army inside the city limits to defend its walls. If something had go wrong they had no reserves. Without the active exercise of democracy in Athens such a strategy would never be followed by generals that were afraid of the King or could not oppose a different opinion to his.

Answer 3

Firstly from the Persian perspective the campaign was more or less a success many of Greek Island gave "Earth and Water"hdt. as sign of submission previously as had Athens. It is True the Ionian revolt had razed Sardis which the Persian slowly responded too and through great management skills corrected the problem that caused the revolt.
The purpose of the campaign appears first to punish the cities that revolted and hopefully bring them into line, secondly to secure a submission. The initial strike by Persia with the razing of Eretria shows that their intention is not to conquer the region by force. Indeed the force was not large enough too acomplish this aim. It is a curious move by Sparta, I would like to propose why the Spartans did not move. It had been noted that the Karneia and religious observance, but one must realise that Kleomenes had previously pushed for the return of Hippias hdt. but the idea was reversed by the league allies and his co-king (demaratus?) whom he later exiled. It seems that while Sparta was religiously fanatic, they were more interested in how events would unfold though carries as much weight as Korinth "Because the Heroes and Gods disallow it" Thukydides and their excuse not to sign the peace of Nikias.The Kleomenes faction (herodotus gives a scathing report of him but he was a man of great following in Sparta) didnt seem to care about Athens. Their appearance later seems to be for show and to study the Medes (In hdt. Medes and Persians are the same). The loss by Persia was anything but a failure, they had razed Eretria (no attempt to occupy Euboea), they had control of the Greek Islands and they successfully quashed the Ionian revolt and more importantly fixed the prolem that caused it. They failed to raze Athens (they will do that later) but overall secured peace. Persia was huge, the impact on Persia came as a surprise but not a devastating one. As for problems in Persia, with the exception of Egypt and Bactria, the Empire was still very stable. What had been a great victory for Athens is a minor setback for Persia, I would like to note that the direct aftermath the Pelopennesian league was still the unifying force in Greece and had been for some time prior to Marathon, and when Xerses did invade it was this league that lead Greece, with a couple of add ons eg Athens. I agree with the above analyse of battle but diverge on the facts slightly also the aftermath.
Lastly on Herodotus. Hdt. gives a scathing account of Kleomenes its true, he is also a pro-athenian writer. hdt. job is to boost Athens and Greece while trying to 'destroy' anti- athenians (eg Kleomenes, Persia) when a objective approach is taken the facts spell a different picture. Im afraid it seems I disagree with both Mills and Fuller analysis (personally Im not Pro- Mill anyway) that do not encompass political reality at the time. Though Fuller is right the battle is a inspiration and more so later on, the victory for the moment is solely Athenian.

Answer 4

Englands.glory is right. In short hand however, the military supremacy and tactical genius of the Spartans meant the persians ended up killing themselves on the greek phalanxes

Answer 5

A combination of superior military technology (weaponry, armour and formation), superior discipline and morale, poor leadership on the part of Datis and quite possibly the will of the Gods.

Answer 6

Englands Gory is right..but i would like to add that the persians were caught up in a mountain pass and could not fight with full force..what do you call that a yea" a bottle neck"

Answer 7

The Ref was on the take

Answer 8

Because winning the battle of snickers would sound stupid

Answer 9

Better leadership and more nimble tactics.

Answer 10

manpower?