How did the fucking Athenians of all people manage this?

>>2682818
Quality generalship + the superiority of a hoplite in the field

>>2682818
Egyptians were nowhere as good sailors as the Greeks. On top of that, Persians were inexperienced at naval combat and subordinated to said Egyptians and the few Phoenicians captains leading their fleets, storms made things worse and haphazard leadership further magnified their failures.

athenians had a good navy, while the terrain of greece itself heavily favours the defender. The persians couldn't very well march over land to athens.

>>2682861
>athenians had a good navy
this, the athenian triremes were far more maneuverable than the persian fleets.

>The persians couldn't very well march over land to athens.
But they did. Athens was sacked. Twice. The whole battle of salamis was after the athenians evacuated their populations and goods to troezen.

Also the athenian hoplites were actually better equipped than the persian sparabaras (their infantries); they didn't wear bronze armor, and their spears were much shorter than the greek dory.

Also spartans. And a lot of luck.

>>2682924
>Athens was sacked. Twice.
Uy, I gotta stop drinking if I'm forgetting this shit.
thanks friend

The Persians got into a bad position where they had no where to maneuver and crowded into each other. Kind of like what happened at Cannae

Greeks had spirit and vigor fighting for a cause they cared about.

>>2682847
>>2682861
>>2682924
>>2682951
>>2682968
First invasion, not the second invasion

>>2683606
This honestly seems like the case. They were poorly trained and had no experience in comparison, no real battle plan or strategy, and just charged in and fought like crazy and somehow pulled one of the most bullshit victories in history.

It's like one of those terrible Game of Thrones battles that somehow worked in real life.

>>2683606
this, also numerical exaggeration. The only record we have are greek, so it's reasonable to assume the numbers were at least a little more evenly matched, especially since it makes Greek victory more plausible

I like how nobody knows what the fuck happened to the cavalry at marathon. Considering they were completely uncontested you'd think they'd cause some havoc but no mention of them.

File: 1491847077599.jpg (64KB, 439x524px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 439x524px

>>2683611
From what I understand the modern estimate for the persian troops is closer to 25k. Also it was not meant to be a conquering effort, more a punitive one for helping the ionians revolts burn the sardis satrap. Remember it was hippias who led them towards athens. Do chances are they weren't planning on mass resistance or invasion, probably just to restore hippias as tyrant since he was sympathetic to persian interests ( he was married to a persian princess iirc as well).

They probably underestimated the greeks as well, the sparabaras troops were still inferior to the greek hoplites when it came to equipment. And like others said, the greeks had a lot more to lose. Herodotus is a bit hard to trust when it comes to battle account, he liked to weave mythology into it. Just like how he said mardonius' fleet sinking was the gods interfering to make sure the later battle would be "even". Do his account that the hoplites sprinted nearly a mile in full bronze armor towards the persians and were still full of vigor is fairly unlikely. Chances are they were more motivated, better equipped and knew the country better. And some luck too. I'll never understand why the greeks kept being so lucky against the persians in the majority of their engagements. Maybe herodotus was right afterall, maybe the gods really did favor the greeks.

>>2684003
>Do his account that the hoplites sprinted nearly a mile in full bronze armor towards the persians and were still full of vigor is fairly unlikely.

Did he specify sprint? I thought it was just a quick advancement under fire. I picture one of those slow jogs into a full run just at the very end. Although I'm sure they can really book it in that armor with training.