Persian War Essay
He is very well informed about the period yet at times makes assumptions which may not be justified.
It is a valuable source as it covers the whole period and explores in depth the effects of not just the battles being assessed but also economic and cultural factors.
It is clearly well researched, yet the subject is so controversial among historians of the period that he would be unable to fulfil his purpose whilst explaining his views in every single controversial area so at times he makes assumptions which could at times be a limitation.
A more obvious limitation of the source is that it was written nearly two and a half thousand years after the period discussed, so there is little evidence as to the events of the war - much that is presented as fact is more of an informed estimate. Conclusion directly, leading to their tactics of securing the support of Greek traitors and using flanking attacks - tactics which nearly conquered the Greeks. Conclusion: The Greco-Persian wars are a period of much controversy, with many statistics and events being fiercely debated.
The Battle of Thermopylae has come to symbolise the clash between the Persian Empire and Greece.
However, it appears to me that The Battle of Thermopylae had little relative worth: the Spartans and their allies failed, understandably, to hold the pass for a significant length of time and the battle led to no development of tactics - except perhaps on the Persian side.
Therefore, it is my conclusion that The Battle of Artemisium was of the greatest value and that The Battle of Thermopylae, whilst famous, was the least.
The term Greco-Persian Wars is thought to be less biased against the Persians than the more common name "Persian Wars," but most of our information about the wars comes from the winners, the Greek side.
The Ionians started a revolt in 499 BC, led by Aristagoras, the tyrant of Miletus, an Ionian city-state in the Persian Empire.It does not examine the course of the battles themselves; nor does it seek to hypothesise over how the war would have progressed differently had the outcomes of the battle differed from reality.The investigation assesses two sources for origins, purpose, value and limitations.We say that if they did not Medize, it was because the Athenians did not do so either; just as afterwards when the Athenians attacked the Hellenes they, the Plataeans, were again the only Boeotians who Atticized." ~Thucydides The final battle of the war had led to the death of the Athenian leader Cimon and the defeat of the Persian forces in the area, but it didn't give decisive power in the Aegean to one side or the other.The Persians and Athenians were both tired and after Persian overtures, Pericles sent Callias to the Persian capital of Susa for negotiations.Although these Greeks did share a common heritage, most of this consisted of killing or enslaving each other2. He wrote the book in order to inform the general public of the war which, in the words of John Stuart Mill, 'even as an event in English history, is more important than the battle of Hastings'13.It is not an academic account, and it is not fully referenced and where there are opposing views he rarely details his decision to choose a particular side.To Medize was to submit to the Persian king as overlord.The Greeks referred to the Persian forces collectively as Medes, not distinguishing Medes from Persians.Persia was a mighty empire, created by Cyrus, the Great.Cyrus conquered one area after another, but allowed the conquered people to worship as they pleased, as long as they gave the great king annual tribute and military service.