Modern historical analysis is bases its existence off of one crucial element; evidence. The First and Second World Wars provide historians with in depth hard evidence from still-existing battlefields as well as thousands of written accounts of the events of a day’s fighting. The further back in history one goes, however, the more scant this history becomes. Amongst the most difficult time periods to analyze can be found in the Classical era; with limited surviving written resources as well as little in terms of tangible evidence, the modern viewpoint on much of the ancient world is dictated by a minute amount of evidence. Especially in the time predating the expansions of the Roman Republic, the material available to historians is incredibly
…show more content…
The length of the Persian Wars is best depicted by a sole source living years after the conflict: Herodotus. All that is known to historians about the most reliable history of this period is known to us through Byzantine literature more than a millennium after he lived. In spite of this, Herodotus provides one of the most objective depictions of ancient history and provides historians with a fantastic representation of the Greco-Persian War; Herodotus also stands as one of the few sources illustrating the rise of the Achaemenid Persian Empire. His Histories, however, also contain a dilemma; how credible can we interpret the work of a man writing at the onset of the Peloponnesian War forty years after the events he is describing? Although oral history can account for some of his knowledge, one can deduce that much must be estimation if not fabrication in his works. This is demonstrated in some of the outright preposterous Persian troop numbers given to us in The Histories:
What the exact number of the troops of each nation [fighting under Darius] I cannot say with certainty – for it is not mentioned by anyone – but the whole land army together was found to amount to one million seven hundred thousand …show more content…
The unearthing of mass graves of Macedonian and Greek troops near the purported battleground has raised questions as to the placement of cavalry and infantry on the battlefield and whether Alexander’s famed cavalry charge against the legendary Theban Sacred Band actually transpired. In spite of damage done to the alleged remains of the Sacred Band being consistent with cavalry, traditional thinking on warfare has clouded the debate, thus rendering the interpretation of the battle more difficult. Western military norms dictate that cavalry, no matter how heavy, will not and cannot charge a disciplined wall of spears; this has been demonstrated in battles ranging from the Greco-Persian War to the Napoleonic War. The thought of warhorses as skittish animals unwilling to charge puts into question every successful cavalry charge in history, however, and one can find this argument wanting. Furthermore, it is probable that the placement of the mass graves is not indicative of troop placement on the battlefield as demonstrated in previous Greek mass graves near battlefields. This has rendered the study of the battleground incredibly difficult as, over two millennia later, one cannot feasibly visit the modern battleground of Chaeronea and determine the placement of troops.
The length of the Persian Wars is best depicted by a sole source living years after the conflict: Herodotus. All that is known to historians about the most reliable history of this period is known to us through Byzantine literature more than a millennium after he lived. In spite of this, Herodotus provides one of the most objective depictions of ancient history and provides historians with a fantastic representation of the Greco-Persian War; Herodotus also stands as one of the few sources illustrating the rise of the Achaemenid Persian Empire. His Histories, however, also contain a dilemma; how credible can we interpret the work of a man writing at the onset of the Peloponnesian War forty years after the events he is describing? Although oral history can account for some of his knowledge, one can deduce that much must be estimation if not fabrication in his works. This is demonstrated in some of the outright preposterous Persian troop numbers given to us in The Histories:
What the exact number of the troops of each nation [fighting under Darius] I cannot say with certainty – for it is not mentioned by anyone – but the whole land army together was found to amount to one million seven hundred thousand …show more content…
The unearthing of mass graves of Macedonian and Greek troops near the purported battleground has raised questions as to the placement of cavalry and infantry on the battlefield and whether Alexander’s famed cavalry charge against the legendary Theban Sacred Band actually transpired. In spite of damage done to the alleged remains of the Sacred Band being consistent with cavalry, traditional thinking on warfare has clouded the debate, thus rendering the interpretation of the battle more difficult. Western military norms dictate that cavalry, no matter how heavy, will not and cannot charge a disciplined wall of spears; this has been demonstrated in battles ranging from the Greco-Persian War to the Napoleonic War. The thought of warhorses as skittish animals unwilling to charge puts into question every successful cavalry charge in history, however, and one can find this argument wanting. Furthermore, it is probable that the placement of the mass graves is not indicative of troop placement on the battlefield as demonstrated in previous Greek mass graves near battlefields. This has rendered the study of the battleground incredibly difficult as, over two millennia later, one cannot feasibly visit the modern battleground of Chaeronea and determine the placement of troops.