Marathon expedition was more about making a point, contrary to the outright invasion of Greece that happened later.The Persians defeat the Athenian army at Marathon. What happens next?
Marathon expedition was more about making a point
It seems to have been more of an afterthought : I think that, for Persians, it could have turned as well into a semi-pythagorician matriarchal gerontocracy as long everyone got the message, namely "don't mess with Persia or that will happen to you too".And restoring tyranny in Athens.
It seems to have been more of an afterthought : I think that, for Persians, it could have turned as well into a matriarchal gerontocracy as long everyone got the message, namely "don't mess with Persia or that will happen to you too".
I doubt it; by then, the Persians would be able to disembark their cavalry, and on the level plain of Marathon, they would be able to outflank and destroy the Peloponnesians.Spartans and Friends arrive a week later and defeat Persians.
Like when Mardonios let the Ionian cities keep their democracies even after they revolted against Persian rule?Maybe, but the Persians had quite a record of prefering tyrants over democracies or oligarchies. It certainly was something systematic, maybe inherent to Persian social structure.
It's less about social structure, IMO, than it's easier to deal on a personal relationship with local rulers, being on part (relatively) with satraps, and that's not systematical.Maybe, but the Persians had quite a record of preferring tyrants over democracies or oligarchies. It certainly was something systematic, maybe inherent to Persian social structure.
Frankly, if Athenians and their allies get trashed, I doubt Spartans will come for a second service and rather they'd just let Persians continue to Athens, humming and looking in the other direction.I doubt it; by then, the Persians would be able to disembark their cavalry, and on the level plain of Marathon, they would be able to outflank and destroy the Peloponnesians.
Marathon expedition was more about making a point, contrary to the outright invasion of Greece that happened later.
Athenians being defeated probably means that their city will be plundered and burnt as a revenge for Sardes, which would have important consequences
There's a big difference having its main city being burned while you're still part of a regional alliance and you scored a major military and political victory just after it went to cinders, and having your city burned when you suffered a major defeat and nobody coming to help you.But the Athens had been plundered and burned 10 years later during the 2nd war.
I generally agree; the only possible mitigating factors I see are Sparta's reputation as a city of tyrant-slayers and them seeing a chance to avenge the slight they suffered in 546, when the Persians conquered Ionia despite Sparta's warnings not to. I don't think it's likely that these considerations would outweigh their general caution, though. It's just that even if they did, they would quite possibly still get trashed if they offered battle in Attica once the Persians are fully disembarked.Frankly, if Athenians and their allies get trashed, I doubt Spartans will come for a second service and rather they'd just let Persians continue to Athens, humming and looking in the other direction.
The Persians defeat the Athenian army at Marathon. What happens next?