Significance of Battle of Plataea

[caesar novus]

I saw a documentary that spun the battle of Plataea into sort of a gateway to western civilization. Was it one of the Spartans greatest contribution in allowing Athens to flower? Other sources seem to downplay it.

 

They emphasized that the Spartans were technologically outclassed by opposing cavalry and had to develop a crazy jogging tactic for when they couldn't get advantage by terrain. As usual they were way outnumbered. It seemed almost more significant victory than thermop* which had to rely a lot on a sea battle; while Palataea left the Athenians free to shape much of the cultural rewards we know today. Furthermore it taught the west that some elements of the rather weird Spartan warrior culture would be needed to defend itself in future centuries?

[caldrail]

 

Television makers do like stressing the importance of the event they are describing. It makes for good television. Personally I haven't anything to add, given I've never heard of the battle before (I wonder if that's a clue to the significance?... Maybe, maybe not), but my first impression is to question why the documentary believes this battle to be so important. My good friend Professor Wikipedia has this to say about significance...

 

Plataea and Mycale have great significance in Ancient history as the battles which decisively ended the second Persian invasion of Greece, thereby swinging the balance of the Greco-Persian Wars in favour of the Greeks.[87] The Battle of Marathon showed that the Persians could be defeated, and the Battle of Salamis saved Greece from immediate conquest, but it was Plataea and Mycale which effectively ended that threat.[87] However, neither of these battles is nearly as well-known as Thermopylae, Salamis or Marathon.[88] The reason for this discrepancy is not entirely clear; it might however be a result of the circumstances in which the battle was fought. The fame of Thermopylae certainly lies in the doomed heroism of the Greeks in the face of overwhelming numbers;[89] and Marathon and Salamis perhaps because they were both fought against the odds, and in dire strategic situations. Conversely, the Battles of Plataea and Mycale were both fought from a relative position of Greek strength, and against lesser odds; the Greeks in fact sought out battle on both occasions.[23][87]

 

Militarily, the major lesson of both Plataea and Mycale (since both were fought on land) was to re-emphasise the superiority of the hoplite over the more-lightly armed Persian infantry, as had first been demonstrated at Marathon.[84] Taking on this lesson, after the Greco-Persian Wars the Persian empire started recruiting and relying on Greek mercenaries.[90] One such mercenary expedition, the "Anabasis of the 10,000" as narrated by Xenophon, further proved to the Greeks that the Persians were militarily vulnerable even well within their own territory, and paved the way for the destruction of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great some decades later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plataea

[caesar novus]

Thanks, although I had seen wiki I did find scraps of support for the TV claims in other googled up sources. From pbs.org: "Herodotus described the battle as 'the finest victory in all history known to me.' (Herod. Book 9)" but then is skeptical when Herod. claims the Persians outnumbered Greeks 17 to 1.

 

Another source points out it was one of the only open land battles, where Persian archers and cavalry were in their element vs the Spartans not being able to project power. The Spartans were against a deadline since their water supply had been poisoned, so had to win or flee. Several sources say the strategic importance of victory was pretty decisive, but no one source seems to pull the various claims together so maybe they are controversial.

 

Before this I thought the Spartans may have been overrated. So weird the way they were too late to Marathon due to their superstitious fetishes, and the Thermop* thing seemed more like grandstanding where there were ways to eventually bypass them by sea or thru the mountains. EDIT-> I also like how the Spartans used fake retreat in the topic battle - not just macho bashing about, if reports can be believed.

Edited February 3, 2011 by caesar novus

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Make no mistake, the spartan army was truly an excellent force and this was one of their finest hour, and one of the finest hour of the Greeks since so many states fought alongside the spartans. Sure the Persians had only left part of their army behind, but that part was their best one, their elite force under their best general. Of course too they had lost morale due to the defeat of the fleet at Salamine, but they had also looted and burned Athens before that.

The battle of Plataea's significance in strategic terms is linked to the fact it broke the heart of the persian army of the time on a plain, in full regular battle conditions with no trickery or strategic surprise : it was just a decisive battle fought when one side attempted a movement and the other tried to impair it. The greeks technological superiority (in armor type, weapon type and fighting formations) led them to be victorious despite the 1 against 2 or 3 odds (or maybe 1 against 4 or 5 if indeed only a fourth of the greek forces fought and if about 1/5th or 1/6th of the persian did not fight).

But I'd say that the Spartans had the easy fight in the instance, with "only" less organized and much less equiped forces fought from a favourable place. The Athenians, who fought against the Thebans, probably had a much more difficult fight...

[Guaporense]

Thanks, although I had seen wiki I did find scraps of support for the TV claims in other googled up sources. From pbs.org: "Herodotus described the battle as 'the finest victory in all history known to me.' (Herod. Book 9)" but then is skeptical when Herod. claims the Persians outnumbered Greeks 17 to 1.

 

The 17 to 1 outnumbering is always mythical Greek exaggeration. It is true that the Persians outnumbered the Greeks and had superior resources, but these discrepancies are too high to be true (or to be true and the Greeks winning simultaneously), partly because if the Greek army was quite substantial them the Persian army would be too large to be possible given the logistics of the time.

 

I think that the battle was very important. Without Greek victory there, the outcome of the Persian invasion was still in doubt. But one has to remember that Greek cities under Persian rule also had developed and flourished culturally, so it would not be impossible for the Hellenic civilization to flower under Persian rule. It would represent a cost, though, in terms of tribute to the Empire. So it would flower with less power, and Athens would not be such great center that it was, because Athens emerged as the great center of Greece because of their little empire.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Guaporense

[Centurion-Macro]

Plataea was an important battle, because it beat the Persian army in a pitched battle. I am not an expert on the battle, but the Persians really did have no real chance of winning. However, it was an important victory for the Greeks, even more so than the more famous battles (Thermopylae and Salamis). But it is often played down in history.