August 22, 2025 • 6 mins
Two distinct military systems, two worldviews, one decisive battlefield. The clash at Plataea in 479 BCE represents far more than a Greek victory over Persian invaders – it embodies the collision of fundamentally different approaches to warfare, each reflecting the society that created it.
Following the naval defeat at Salamis, Persian King Xerxes withdrew with most of his forces, but left his trusted commander Mardonius with an elite army estimated at 70,000 men. This wasn't merely an occupation force but a carefully selected contingent designed to bring the Greek campaign to a decisive close. With its diverse troops drawn from across the vast Persian Empire, this army excelled in mobility, missile warfare, and cavalry tactics – elements that had fuelled Persian expansion across the ancient world.
Standing against this imperial host was the Greek coalition, cantered around the hoplite phalanx – heavily armoured citizen-soldiers fighting in tight formation. Each man carried a large round shield (aspis), bronze helmet, chest plate, greaves, and long spear, creating a formation where survival depended on maintaining cohesion with one's neighbours. This military system directly reflected Greek civic values – interdependence, discipline, and collective action for the polis.
The preliminary phases revealed the contrasting strengths of both approaches. Persian cavalry successfully harassed Greek positions, disrupting supply lines and forcing the hoplites into defensive postures ill-suited to their equipment and training. Yet when Mardonius mistook a Greek repositioning for retreat and ordered a full attack, the disciplined Spartan and Tegean hoplites demonstrated the phalanx's devastating effectiveness in close combat. Mardonius' death in the melee shattered Persian coordination, transforming their advance into a catastrophic rout.
What makes Plataea fascinating isn't just the outcome but the complex interplay of factors that produced it. The Greek victory stemmed not from inherent military superiority but from effectively exploiting favourable terrain, maintaining psychological resilience, and capitalizing on the moment when conditions suited their strengths. The battle became a cultural touchstone that shaped Greek identity for generations – a moment when citizen-soldiers defending their homes prevailed against history's greatest empire.
Curious about how ancient military innovations continue to influence modern strategy? Subscribe to explore more pivotal moments where tactics, technology, and human determination reshaped history.
💬 Stay Connected with Casting Through Ancient Greece
Follow us for updates, discussions, and more ancient Greek content:
🌐 Website
📸 Instagram
🐦 Twitter
📘 Facebook
🎙️ Love the show? Don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with fellow history enthusiasts. Your support helps keep the stories of ancient Greece alive!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Hello everyone and thank you for continuing to
support the series here onPatreon.
I do apologise for the break inthe release schedule.
However, other life factorshave been influencing the amount
of time I have had to devote tothe podcast, though it looks
like I can now put more focus onthe series moving forward and
get back to a regular schedule.
During this period I hadstopped the Patreon payments
(00:35):
since no new episodes werereleased in this time.
But now we should be back ontrack and let's get back into
our bonus episodes with a lookat Platea as a clash of military
systems.
With the defeat of the Persianfleet at Salamis, the strategic
situation in Greece had shifteddramatically.
Xerxes, unwilling to risk theloss of his own entire force,
(00:57):
had withdrawn, with the bulk ofthe Persian army back across the
Hellespont.
However, he did not abandon thecampaign altogether, spot.
However, he did not abandon thecampaign altogether.
Mardonius, one of the mostexperienced and trusted Persian
commanders, would remain inGreece with a carefully selected
force.
Herodotus tells us that thiscontingent amounted to 300,000
men, though modern estimatesplace it much lower, perhaps
(01:18):
around 70,000.
Regardless of the precisefigure, it was still a
formidable army, one thatincluded the best of the Persian
forces and a cavalry arm thathad proven highly effective
throughout the invasion.
The Greeks, on the other hand,now saw a new opportunity.
With the Persian fleetneutralised, the immediate
threat of another seaborneinvasion on Athens and the
(01:40):
Peloponnese was removed.
Attention could now turn to adecisive land confrontation.
Both sides understood that theissue of Persian control in
mainland Greece would be decidedon the battlefield and the
coming clash would take place inthe territory of Plataea.
What makes Plataea stand out,however, is not simply that it
(02:01):
was a final battle of thePersian Wars.
Rather, it has long been viewedas a moment where two distinct
military systems came face toface.
On the one hand stood thePersians, with their emphasis on
mobility, archery and amulti-ethnic composition of
forces drawn from across theempire.
On the other were the Greekswith their heavy infantry,
(02:24):
hoplites, citizen-soldiersfighting in close formation,
relying on discipline and shockpower.
At Plataea, it was not onlyarmies that would collide, but
also two very differentapproaches to warfare, each
rooted in its own society'svalues, traditions and
experience.
The question then becomes wasPlataea truly the vindication of
(02:47):
the hoplite phalanx as asuperior mode of combat, as
later Greek writers liked topresent it, or was it instead a
victory born of circumstances,terrain, Persian missteps and
the particular dynamics of thiscampaign.
To explore this, we must firstunderstand the character of each
military system, theirstrengths and weaknesses and how
(03:12):
these played out in the final,decisive engagement.
The force that Mardoniuscommanded in Greece represented
the very heart of the Persianmilitary system.
Though Xerxes had withdrawn toAsia with the greater part of
his host, mardonius had beenentrusted with what Herodotus
describes as the picked troopsof the empire.
This was no ordinary garrisonforce left behind to watch over
subdued territory, but acarefully selected army designed
(03:33):
to bring the campaign to adecisive close.
Its strength lay in itsdiversity, for it was drawn from
across the vast territoriesunder Persian control, each
contingent bringing its owntraditions of fighting vast
territories under Persiancontrol, each contingent
bringing its own traditions offighting.
Herodotus provides us with oneof the more detailed accounts of
this army, listing Persians,medes, bactrians, indians and
(03:58):
the Sakhae among its infantry,supported by a cavalry arm that
had already demonstrated itseffectiveness in earlier stages
of the invasion.
The Persian strength and mountedwarfare cannot be overstated.
Their cavalry was a flexibleand mobile force capable of
harassing enemy positions,cutting off supplies and forcing
opponents into disadvantageousground.
At Plataea.
This cavalry would be employedrepeatedly to great effect in
(04:20):
the days leading up to thebattle, and it became one of the
defining features of thePersian approach.
The Persian infantry alsoreflected the empire's style of
warfare.
They carried wicker shields andwere often lightly armoured,
with some units using scale orquilted protection.
Their weapons included shortspears, swords and, most
importantly, bows.
(04:41):
Missile fire was a criticalelement of the Persian system,
allowing them to weaken anddisorientate their enemy before
close engagement.
When supported by cavalrymanoeuvres, this could place
immense pressure on opposingforces, as had been seen in
other campaigns throughout theempire.
Yet this system carried with itcertain weaknesses when
(05:02):
confronting the Greek hoplitemodel.
The lighter equipment of thePersian infantry left them at a
disadvantage in the dense,close-quarter combat of a
phalanx clash.
While their mobility andflexibility could be decisive in
open terrain, they were farless effective when forced into
a grinding melee against heavilyarmoured opponents.
Furthermore, the very diversitythat gave the Persian army its
(05:24):
breadth of tactical options alsopresented challenges.
Coordinating such amulti-ethnic force with varying
equipment and methods offighting demanded a level of
unity and cohesion that wasdifficult to achieve under
battlefield pressure.
In many ways, the Persian armyat Plataea represented the
strengths and vulnerabilities ofthe empire itself.
(05:44):
In many ways, the Persian armyat Plataea represented the
strengths and vulnerabilities ofthe empire itself.
It was vast, diverse andformidable, yet also carried
with it structural challengesthat could be exposed under the
right conditions.
To understand the fullsignificance of this, we must
now turn to the opposing system,the Greek phalanx, and see how
these two ways of war would bebrought into collision.
On the fields of Plataea,opposing Mardonius and his
(06:08):
Persian host, stood the alliedGreek force, assembled under
Spartan leadership but comprisedof contingents from across the
Hellenic world.
Herodotus provides us with afigure of some 110,000 men,
though modern historians tend tosee this as exaggerated.
Regardless of the precisenumber, it was a force that
represented an unprecedentedcoalition of polis, united in
(06:32):
their determination to expel theinvader from Greek soil.
At its core lay the hoplitephalanx, the defining military
formation of the Greekcity-states.
The hoplite was, first andforemost, a citizen-soldier
Equipped at his own expense.
He carried the heavy panoplythat gave the formation both its
strength and its limitations.
Central to this was a largeround shield, the aspis,
(06:55):
designed not only to protect thebearer but could also cover the
man to his left, reinforcingthe cohesion of the line.
Alongside this came the bronzehelmet, chest plate and greaves,
with many carrying equipment ofconsiderable weight, armed with
a long spear as their primaryweapon and a sword as a
secondary.
These men were trained to fightin close order, shoulder to
(07:17):
shoulder, moving as one.
The phalanx's strength was inits unity A tightly packed line
of armoured men.
Each shield overlapping withits neighbours could deliver
devastating shock power in afrontal assault.
In the right conditions, fewforces could withstand the
momentum and weight of such acharge.
This discipline and cohesionwere central to the Greek way of
(07:39):
fighting and, much like thePersian army, reflected the
empire, the phalanx reflectedthe polis.
It was a formation that reliedon the cooperation and resolve
of its citizens.
Each man's survival depended onthe reliability of the comrade
beside him.
However, this system was notwithout its weaknesses.
The Phalanx was an inflexibleformation, well suited to set
(08:08):
peace battles on favourableground, but vulnerable when
drawn into disorder.
Its heavy equipment mademanoeuvre difficult and its
reliance on close combat left itexposed to missile fire and
harassment from cavalry Aplatia.
These weaknesses would becomeapparent in the early stages as
the Persian cavalry operatedfreely against Greek positions.
Nevertheless, the psychologicaland symbolic power of these
(08:28):
hoplite phalanxes should not beunderestimated.
To the Greeks, the formationwas not simply a military tactic
, but an embodiment of theircivic identity and a collective
resolve.
As the coalition gathered atPlataea, it was this ideal that
stood against the multi-ethnichost of Persia.
The outcome of the comingbattle would in many ways
(08:58):
determine not only the survivalof the Greek state but the
credibility of the hoplitesystem itself when tested
against the greatest empire, theancient world.
The days leading up to thedecisive clash at Plataea would
reveal the strengths andweaknesses inherent in both the
Persian and Greek ways of war.
Mardonius, aware of thedifficulties his infantry faced
against the Greek phalanx,sought to exploit the advantages
of his cavalry.
This arm of the Persian forcehad already proven highly
effective earlier in thecampaign, and a platea would
(09:21):
once again take centre stage.
Herodotus recounts that thePersian cavalry, under the
command of Macisteus, beganharassing the Greek positions
soon after both sides had takenup their camps.
They would ride out against theGreek lines, losing arrows and
javelins, before retreating aform of warfare designed to
disrupt and wear down the enemywithout risking a set-piece
(09:43):
engagement.
This style of combat exposedthe limitations of the Greek
system, for the hoplite phalanx,with its heavy armour and rigid
formation was poorly suited torespond to such mobile and
elusive attacks.
The cavalry succeeded incutting off Greek foraging
parties and threatening theirsupply lines, forcing the Greeks
(10:03):
into a defensive posture.
The death of Macisteus, however,after being unhorsed and killed
in one of these skirmishes,provided a momentary boost to
Greek morale.
His fall was treated with greatceremony by the Persians, who
mourned their commander loudly,while the Greeks saw in it a
sign that even the fearedcavalry could be resisted.
(10:24):
Yet the broader tacticalsituation remained unchanged the
Persian horsemen continued toexact pressure and the Greeks
found themselves increasinglyconstrained, unable to bring
their full strength to bear inthe type of battle that best
suited them.
It was in this context thatPausanias, the Spartan commander
, faced the difficult task ofmanaging a coalition army under
(10:48):
constant harassment task ofmanaging a coalition army under
constant harassment.
Herodotus tells us thatPausanias was reluctant to
engage prematurely, waitinginstead on for favourable omens
from the sacrifices beforecommitting to battle.
This delay, however, onlyintensified the pressure on the
Greek positions, with thePersians continuing their
attacks and cutting off vitalwater supplies.
(11:11):
Here we see the contrast betweenthe two systems most clearly.
Before the actual clash, thePersians used their mobility to
dictate the flow of events,while the Greeks relied on their
discipline and cohesion toendure.
The stage was being set for theconfrontation that both sides
knew was inevitable.
But the opening manoeuvreshighlighted just how vulnerable
(11:33):
the Hoplite system could be whenforced to operate outside its
ideal conditions.
The decisive moment at Plataeawould come only after a tense
series of manoeuvres andmiscommunications.
The Greek position, thoughstrong, had become increasingly
precarious under Persianpressure.
Cavalry raids had disruptedtheir access to supplies, while
(11:55):
constant harassment made theircamp less tenable with each
passing day.
In response, pausanias decidedon a night withdrawal to
reposition the army closer tomore favourable ground.
However, as Herodotus recounts,the operation did not unfold
smoothly.
The withdrawal was poorlycoordinated, with the different
contingents moving at varyingtimes and in varying directions.
(12:18):
This created the impression ofdisorder, a fact quickly
recognised by the Persians.
This created the impression ofdisorder, a fact quickly
recognised by the Persians.
Mardonius, believing the Greeksto be in retreat, seized the
moment.
He ordered his infantry forward, supported by his cavalry,
determined to press theadvantage and bring about a
(12:38):
decisive victory.
To Persian eyes, the Greekforce appeared to be dissolving
under the weight of sustainedpressure.
An opportunity too valuable toignore.
Yet, in reality, while theGreek army was scattered, its
core contingents, including theSpartans and Tigeans, remained
intact, fighting order.
The Persians advancedaggressively, their archers
losing volleys of arrows as theyclosed the distance.
(13:00):
Pausanias, confronted with theimminent attack, once again
turned to the gods, offeringsacrifices in the hope of
favourable omens before engaging.
Herodotus paints the scenevividly, describing the tension
as the Spartans stood firm underthe incoming missile fire,
waiting until the signs weredeemed auspicious.
Only then would they advance.
(13:21):
When the lines finally met, thecontrast between the two
systems could not have beenclearer.
The Persians, with their wickershields and lighter armour,
attempted to fight with agilityand speed, relying on their
numbers and missile weapons.
The Greeks, by contrast,advanced in close formation,
shields locked and spearsextended.
(13:41):
In the brutal shock of the closecombat, the advantage lay
firmly with the hoplites.
The weight of the phalanx droveinto the Persian line, and
though the Persians foughtbravely, even seizing the
enemy's spears and attempting tobreak the formation, they were
unable to withstand the pressure.
The turning point came with thedeath of Mardonius, himself
Struck down in the melee.
(14:02):
His fall had a devastatingeffect on the Persian morale.
The army, already falteringunder the relentless push of the
hoplites, now collapsed intodisorder.
What had begun as an apparentopportunity for the Persians
quickly unravelled into a rout.
The Greeks pressed theiradvantage, driving their enemy
back towards their camp, wherethe slaughter became all the
(14:22):
more severe.
Driving their enemy backtowards their camp, where the
slaughter became all the moresevere.
Aplatia.
The confrontation between thetwo systems reached its climax.
The Persian reliance onmobility, missile fire and
lighter equipment had falteredagainst the dense cohesion and
shock power of a hoplite phalanx.
In this clash, fought on theterms favourable to the Greeks,
the superiority of theirformation was laid bare, while
(14:44):
the vulnerabilities of thePersian system were fatally
exposed.
The outcome, aplatea, invitescareful consideration.
For while the battle appears atfirst glance to be a
straightforward Greek victory,the reasons behind it are
complex.
Herodotus and latercommentators emphasised the role
of courage and discipline.
Yet it is clear that the Greeksexcess as much as a function of
(15:07):
circumstances and tacticaladvantage as of inherent
superiority.
One of the primary factors wasterrain.
Plataea's ground, though notmountainous, was uneven and
restricted in certain areas,limiting the effectiveness of
Persian cavalry and reducingtheir mobility.
Where open plains might haveallowed the Persians to exploit
(15:28):
their speed and skirmishingability, the chosen battlefield
forced them into constrainedzones where the hoplite phalanx
could deliver a maximum shock.
The Greek commanders,particularly Pausanias,
recognised this advantage andsought to fight where their
strengths would be decisive.
Greek unity and cohesion alsoproved decisive.
The hoplites relied on eachman's commitment to his
(15:50):
neighbour, with shieldsoverlapping and ranks advancing
as a single entity.
In contrast, the Persian army,though formidable in size and
diversity, depended oncontingents operating with their
own methods and commandstructures.
When Mardonius fell,coordination collapsed rapidly
and the army's psychologicalresilience, less reinforced by
(16:10):
cohesion than the Greeks,dissolved in the face of a
concentrated phalanx.
Morale and motivation played anequally important role.
The Greeks fought on familiarground to defend their homes,
their polyes and their way oflife.
The Persians, despite theirskill and training, were an
occupying force operating farfrom the heart of their empire.
While discipline could holdlines under ordinary
(16:33):
circumstances, it could notcompensate for the sudden shock
of a concentrated frontalassault by determined heavy
infantry.
Finally, the timing andexecution of the Greek advance
magnified the effectiveness oftheir system.
By waiting for favourable omensand advancing in the full
formation at a decisive moment,they neutralised the Persian
(16:55):
advantage in mobility and rangedcombat.
What might have been a chaoticwithdrawal became, through
discipline and cohesion, anopportunity to strike decisively
.
In sum, the victory of thehoplites of Plataea was a
combination of factors theproper exploitation of terrain,
the psychological and socialcohesion of the Greek army and
(17:16):
the careful orchestration ofengagement by the commanders.
While the battle certainlyhighlighted the effectiveness of
the phalanx, it alsoillustrates that no systems of
warfare is universally superior.
Success depends upon theinterplay of environment,
leadership and circumstance.
Beyond the tactical andmaterial factors, plataea
(17:36):
carried profound cultural andideological significance for the
Greeks.
Herodotus presents the battlenot merely as a military
encounter, but as aconfrontation between two
fundamentally different ways oflife.
On one side stood the PersianEmpire, vast and multi-ethnic,
ruled from a distant monarchwith subjects drawn from across
the known world.
On the other stood the Greekcity-states, each fiercely
(17:59):
independent, bound together by asense of civic duty and
communal identity, andrepresented in the army by
citizen-soldiers fighting fortheir homes.
The hoplite phalanx itselfembodied this cultural ethos
Each man's survival and successdepended on the steadfast of his
neighbour.
A literal manifestation of theinterdependence central to Greek
society.
As Victor Davis Hanson observes,the phalanx was not only a
(18:20):
method of war.
Literal manifestation of theinterdependence central to Greek
society.
As Victor Davis Hanson observes, the phalanx was not only a
method of war, but also apolitical statement.
It demonstrated the ability forcitizens to organize
collectively, to subordinateindividual impulses to the good
of the polis and to wield thatunity effectively in combat.
(18:40):
In this light, the phalanx wasa reflection of the Greek ideal,
and Plataea became a validationof that ideal under the most
testing circumstances.
By contrast, the Persian army,while formidable, symbolised
imperial authority rather thancivic participation.
Its multi-ethnic opposition,reliance on mounted troops and
(19:04):
strategic mobility all reflectedthe practicalities of
controlling a vast empire ratherthan the cultivation of a
shared sense of civic duty.
Herodotus repeatedly highlightsthe psychological impact of
this contrast.
When the Greeks stood firm underthe missile fire or advanced
disciplined formation againstthe Persians, it was not simply
(19:25):
a matter of skill on a societycapable of instilling cohesion,
courage and purpose in itscitizens.
The outcome of Plataea,therefore, was interpreted by
the Greeks as more than amilitary victory.
It was a symbolic triumph offreedom over despotism, of
citizen-soldiers defending theirhomes against the imperial
system.
Over time, this interpretationwould be reinforced in the
(19:48):
historical memory of Greece,with Plataea celebrated as a
decisive moment when Greekvalues embodied in the phalanx
proved superior to the Persianmethod of warfare.
The battle thus became acultural touchstone, shaping the
Greek perceptions of themselvesand their place in the world
for generations to come.
The immediate consequences ofPlataea were both dramatic and
(20:11):
far-reaching.
With the death of Mardonius andthe rout of the Persian army,
the threat of a land-basedPersian invasion of Greece
effectively ended.
Herodotus recounts that thesurvivors of the Persian force
were pursued and cut down asthey retreated to the river and
their camp, marking a completereversal from the earlier phases
of the campaign.
For the Greeks, the victory wasnot merely tactical.
(20:34):
It secured the Peloponnese andmuch of the central Greece from
further Persian occupation,allowing the city-states to
consolidate and recover afteryears of conflict.
The legacy of Plataea extendedwell beyond the battlefield.
Militarily, it reinforced theperception that the hoplite
phalanx was a dominant form ofwarfare, capable of defeating
(20:55):
even the most skilled andnumerically superior opponents
when employed with disciplineand cohesion.
Greek confidence in the phalanxwould shape the strategic
thinking of city-states fordecades, influencing their
approach in subsequent conflicts, including the Peloponnesian
War.
The battle became a referencepoint for military theorists and
historians alike, a case studyin the interplay between tactics
(21:18):
, morale and the organisation ofcitizen armies.
Culturally and politically,plataea took on a symbolic
significance.
The Greeks framed the victoryas a triumph of freedom, unity
and civic responsibility overimperial domination.
The hoplite, once a practicalinstrument of war, became an
emblem of Greek identity and theideals of Apollos.
(21:40):
Cities celebrated the victorythrough monuments,
commemorations and storytelling,embedding Plataea into the
collective memory as a momentwhen Greek values had decisively
prevailed.
Yet the story also carries anote of irony.
While the phalanx had provedits effectiveness, later
conflicts would show the Greeksadopting and adapting elements
(22:02):
of the Persian system.
Cavalry, light infantry andmercenary forces became
increasingly important in theHellenistic armies.
Plataea, therefore, was not thefinal word on military
superiority, but a demonstrationof the power of a
well-disciplined citizen armyoperating under favourable
conditions.
It was a victory born ofcircumstances as much as skill,
(22:25):
but one whose immediate andenduring effects would resonate
across the Greek world.
In reflection on Plataea, onesees not only a battlefield
triumph, but a convergence ofstrategy, ideology and social
cohesion.
The clash of military systemsrevealed the strengths and its
limitations of each.
Yet it is the Greek narrative,the story of citizen-soldiers
(22:48):
holding firm against the vastempire, that has echoed through
history, shaping how the battlehas been remembered and
celebrated for over twomillennia.
Thank you all for yourcontingent support here on
Patreon.
I really do appreciate it.
We should now be able to stayon track with our monthly bonus
episodes, as I really do enjoycreating them.
Thanks again, and I'll see younext month, where we'll take a
(23:11):
closer look at Pausanias and theSpartan leadership around this
period.
You.
Hello everyone and thank you for continuing to
support the series here onPatreon.
I do apologise for the break inthe release schedule.
However, other life factorshave been influencing the amount
of time I have had to devote tothe podcast, though it looks
like I can now put more focus onthe series moving forward and
get back to a regular schedule.
During this period I hadstopped the Patreon payments
(00:35):
since no new episodes werereleased in this time.
But now we should be back ontrack and let's get back into
our bonus episodes with a lookat Platea as a clash of military
systems.
With the defeat of the Persianfleet at Salamis, the strategic
situation in Greece had shifteddramatically.
Xerxes, unwilling to risk theloss of his own entire force,
(00:57):
had withdrawn, with the bulk ofthe Persian army back across the
Hellespont.
However, he did not abandon thecampaign altogether, spot.
However, he did not abandon thecampaign altogether.
Mardonius, one of the mostexperienced and trusted Persian
commanders, would remain inGreece with a carefully selected
force.
Herodotus tells us that thiscontingent amounted to 300,000
men, though modern estimatesplace it much lower, perhaps
(01:18):
around 70,000.
Regardless of the precisefigure, it was still a
formidable army, one thatincluded the best of the Persian
forces and a cavalry arm thathad proven highly effective
throughout the invasion.
The Greeks, on the other hand,now saw a new opportunity.
With the Persian fleetneutralised, the immediate
threat of another seaborneinvasion on Athens and the
(01:40):
Peloponnese was removed.
Attention could now turn to adecisive land confrontation.
Both sides understood that theissue of Persian control in
mainland Greece would be decidedon the battlefield and the
coming clash would take place inthe territory of Plataea.
What makes Plataea stand out,however, is not simply that it
(02:01):
was a final battle of thePersian Wars.
Rather, it has long been viewedas a moment where two distinct
military systems came face toface.
On the one hand stood thePersians, with their emphasis on
mobility, archery and amulti-ethnic composition of
forces drawn from across theempire.
On the other were the Greekswith their heavy infantry,
(02:24):
hoplites, citizen-soldiersfighting in close formation,
relying on discipline and shockpower.
At Plataea, it was not onlyarmies that would collide, but
also two very differentapproaches to warfare, each
rooted in its own society'svalues, traditions and
experience.
The question then becomes wasPlataea truly the vindication of
(02:47):
the hoplite phalanx as asuperior mode of combat, as
later Greek writers liked topresent it, or was it instead a
victory born of circumstances,terrain, Persian missteps and
the particular dynamics of thiscampaign.
To explore this, we must firstunderstand the character of each
military system, theirstrengths and weaknesses and how
(03:12):
these played out in the final,decisive engagement.
The force that Mardoniuscommanded in Greece represented
the very heart of the Persianmilitary system.
Though Xerxes had withdrawn toAsia with the greater part of
his host, mardonius had beenentrusted with what Herodotus
describes as the picked troopsof the empire.
This was no ordinary garrisonforce left behind to watch over
subdued territory, but acarefully selected army designed
(03:33):
to bring the campaign to adecisive close.
Its strength lay in itsdiversity, for it was drawn from
across the vast territoriesunder Persian control, each
contingent bringing its owntraditions of fighting vast
territories under Persiancontrol, each contingent
bringing its own traditions offighting.
Herodotus provides us with oneof the more detailed accounts of
this army, listing Persians,medes, bactrians, indians and
(03:58):
the Sakhae among its infantry,supported by a cavalry arm that
had already demonstrated itseffectiveness in earlier stages
of the invasion.
The Persian strength and mountedwarfare cannot be overstated.
Their cavalry was a flexibleand mobile force capable of
harassing enemy positions,cutting off supplies and forcing
opponents into disadvantageousground.
At Plataea.
This cavalry would be employedrepeatedly to great effect in
(04:20):
the days leading up to thebattle, and it became one of the
defining features of thePersian approach.
The Persian infantry alsoreflected the empire's style of
warfare.
They carried wicker shields andwere often lightly armoured,
with some units using scale orquilted protection.
Their weapons included shortspears, swords and, most
importantly, bows.
(04:41):
Missile fire was a criticalelement of the Persian system,
allowing them to weaken anddisorientate their enemy before
close engagement.
When supported by cavalrymanoeuvres, this could place
immense pressure on opposingforces, as had been seen in
other campaigns throughout theempire.
Yet this system carried with itcertain weaknesses when
(05:02):
confronting the Greek hoplitemodel.
The lighter equipment of thePersian infantry left them at a
disadvantage in the dense,close-quarter combat of a
phalanx clash.
While their mobility andflexibility could be decisive in
open terrain, they were farless effective when forced into
a grinding melee against heavilyarmoured opponents.
Furthermore, the very diversitythat gave the Persian army its
(05:24):
breadth of tactical options alsopresented challenges.
Coordinating such amulti-ethnic force with varying
equipment and methods offighting demanded a level of
unity and cohesion that wasdifficult to achieve under
battlefield pressure.
In many ways, the Persian armyat Plataea represented the
strengths and vulnerabilities ofthe empire itself.
(05:44):
In many ways, the Persian armyat Plataea represented the
strengths and vulnerabilities ofthe empire itself.
It was vast, diverse andformidable, yet also carried
with it structural challengesthat could be exposed under the
right conditions.
To understand the fullsignificance of this, we must
now turn to the opposing system,the Greek phalanx, and see how
these two ways of war would bebrought into collision.
On the fields of Plataea,opposing Mardonius and his
(06:08):
Persian host, stood the alliedGreek force, assembled under
Spartan leadership but comprisedof contingents from across the
Hellenic world.
Herodotus provides us with afigure of some 110,000 men,
though modern historians tend tosee this as exaggerated.
Regardless of the precisenumber, it was a force that
represented an unprecedentedcoalition of polis, united in
(06:32):
their determination to expel theinvader from Greek soil.
At its core lay the hoplitephalanx, the defining military
formation of the Greekcity-states.
The hoplite was, first andforemost, a citizen-soldier
Equipped at his own expense.
He carried the heavy panoplythat gave the formation both its
strength and its limitations.
Central to this was a largeround shield, the aspis,
(06:55):
designed not only to protect thebearer but could also cover the
man to his left, reinforcingthe cohesion of the line.
Alongside this came the bronzehelmet, chest plate and greaves,
with many carrying equipment ofconsiderable weight, armed with
a long spear as their primaryweapon and a sword as a
secondary.
These men were trained to fightin close order, shoulder to
(07:17):
shoulder, moving as one.
The phalanx's strength was inits unity A tightly packed line
of armoured men.
Each shield overlapping withits neighbours could deliver
devastating shock power in afrontal assault.
In the right conditions, fewforces could withstand the
momentum and weight of such acharge.
This discipline and cohesionwere central to the Greek way of
(07:39):
fighting and, much like thePersian army, reflected the
empire, the phalanx reflectedthe polis.
It was a formation that reliedon the cooperation and resolve
of its citizens.
Each man's survival depended onthe reliability of the comrade
beside him.
However, this system was notwithout its weaknesses.
The Phalanx was an inflexibleformation, well suited to set
(08:08):
peace battles on favourableground, but vulnerable when
drawn into disorder.
Its heavy equipment mademanoeuvre difficult and its
reliance on close combat left itexposed to missile fire and
harassment from cavalry Aplatia.
These weaknesses would becomeapparent in the early stages as
the Persian cavalry operatedfreely against Greek positions.
Nevertheless, the psychologicaland symbolic power of these
(08:28):
hoplite phalanxes should not beunderestimated.
To the Greeks, the formationwas not simply a military tactic
, but an embodiment of theircivic identity and a collective
resolve.
As the coalition gathered atPlataea, it was this ideal that
stood against the multi-ethnichost of Persia.
The outcome of the comingbattle would in many ways
(08:58):
determine not only the survivalof the Greek state but the
credibility of the hoplitesystem itself when tested
against the greatest empire, theancient world.
The days leading up to thedecisive clash at Plataea would
reveal the strengths andweaknesses inherent in both the
Persian and Greek ways of war.
Mardonius, aware of thedifficulties his infantry faced
against the Greek phalanx,sought to exploit the advantages
of his cavalry.
This arm of the Persian forcehad already proven highly
effective earlier in thecampaign, and a platea would
(09:21):
once again take centre stage.
Herodotus recounts that thePersian cavalry, under the
command of Macisteus, beganharassing the Greek positions
soon after both sides had takenup their camps.
They would ride out against theGreek lines, losing arrows and
javelins, before retreating aform of warfare designed to
disrupt and wear down the enemywithout risking a set-piece
(09:43):
engagement.
This style of combat exposedthe limitations of the Greek
system, for the hoplite phalanx,with its heavy armour and rigid
formation was poorly suited torespond to such mobile and
elusive attacks.
The cavalry succeeded incutting off Greek foraging
parties and threatening theirsupply lines, forcing the Greeks
(10:03):
into a defensive posture.
The death of Macisteus, however,after being unhorsed and killed
in one of these skirmishes,provided a momentary boost to
Greek morale.
His fall was treated with greatceremony by the Persians, who
mourned their commander loudly,while the Greeks saw in it a
sign that even the fearedcavalry could be resisted.
(10:24):
Yet the broader tacticalsituation remained unchanged the
Persian horsemen continued toexact pressure and the Greeks
found themselves increasinglyconstrained, unable to bring
their full strength to bear inthe type of battle that best
suited them.
It was in this context thatPausanias, the Spartan commander
, faced the difficult task ofmanaging a coalition army under
(10:48):
constant harassment task ofmanaging a coalition army under
constant harassment.
Herodotus tells us thatPausanias was reluctant to
engage prematurely, waitinginstead on for favourable omens
from the sacrifices beforecommitting to battle.
This delay, however, onlyintensified the pressure on the
Greek positions, with thePersians continuing their
attacks and cutting off vitalwater supplies.
(11:11):
Here we see the contrast betweenthe two systems most clearly.
Before the actual clash, thePersians used their mobility to
dictate the flow of events,while the Greeks relied on their
discipline and cohesion toendure.
The stage was being set for theconfrontation that both sides
knew was inevitable.
But the opening manoeuvreshighlighted just how vulnerable
(11:33):
the Hoplite system could be whenforced to operate outside its
ideal conditions.
The decisive moment at Plataeawould come only after a tense
series of manoeuvres andmiscommunications.
The Greek position, thoughstrong, had become increasingly
precarious under Persianpressure.
Cavalry raids had disruptedtheir access to supplies, while
(11:55):
constant harassment made theircamp less tenable with each
passing day.
In response, pausanias decidedon a night withdrawal to
reposition the army closer tomore favourable ground.
However, as Herodotus recounts,the operation did not unfold
smoothly.
The withdrawal was poorlycoordinated, with the different
contingents moving at varyingtimes and in varying directions.
(12:18):
This created the impression ofdisorder, a fact quickly
recognised by the Persians.
This created the impression ofdisorder, a fact quickly
recognised by the Persians.
Mardonius, believing the Greeksto be in retreat, seized the
moment.
He ordered his infantry forward, supported by his cavalry,
determined to press theadvantage and bring about a
(12:38):
decisive victory.
To Persian eyes, the Greekforce appeared to be dissolving
under the weight of sustainedpressure.
An opportunity too valuable toignore.
Yet, in reality, while theGreek army was scattered, its
core contingents, including theSpartans and Tigeans, remained
intact, fighting order.
The Persians advancedaggressively, their archers
losing volleys of arrows as theyclosed the distance.
(13:00):
Pausanias, confronted with theimminent attack, once again
turned to the gods, offeringsacrifices in the hope of
favourable omens before engaging.
Herodotus paints the scenevividly, describing the tension
as the Spartans stood firm underthe incoming missile fire,
waiting until the signs weredeemed auspicious.
Only then would they advance.
(13:21):
When the lines finally met, thecontrast between the two
systems could not have beenclearer.
The Persians, with their wickershields and lighter armour,
attempted to fight with agilityand speed, relying on their
numbers and missile weapons.
The Greeks, by contrast,advanced in close formation,
shields locked and spearsextended.
(13:41):
In the brutal shock of the closecombat, the advantage lay
firmly with the hoplites.
The weight of the phalanx droveinto the Persian line, and
though the Persians foughtbravely, even seizing the
enemy's spears and attempting tobreak the formation, they were
unable to withstand the pressure.
The turning point came with thedeath of Mardonius, himself
Struck down in the melee.
(14:02):
His fall had a devastatingeffect on the Persian morale.
The army, already falteringunder the relentless push of the
hoplites, now collapsed intodisorder.
What had begun as an apparentopportunity for the Persians
quickly unravelled into a rout.
The Greeks pressed theiradvantage, driving their enemy
back towards their camp, wherethe slaughter became all the
(14:22):
more severe.
Driving their enemy backtowards their camp, where the
slaughter became all the moresevere.
Aplatia.
The confrontation between thetwo systems reached its climax.
The Persian reliance onmobility, missile fire and
lighter equipment had falteredagainst the dense cohesion and
shock power of a hoplite phalanx.
In this clash, fought on theterms favourable to the Greeks,
the superiority of theirformation was laid bare, while
(14:44):
the vulnerabilities of thePersian system were fatally
exposed.
The outcome, aplatea, invitescareful consideration.
For while the battle appears atfirst glance to be a
straightforward Greek victory,the reasons behind it are
complex.
Herodotus and latercommentators emphasised the role
of courage and discipline.
Yet it is clear that the Greeksexcess as much as a function of
(15:07):
circumstances and tacticaladvantage as of inherent
superiority.
One of the primary factors wasterrain.
Plataea's ground, though notmountainous, was uneven and
restricted in certain areas,limiting the effectiveness of
Persian cavalry and reducingtheir mobility.
Where open plains might haveallowed the Persians to exploit
(15:28):
their speed and skirmishingability, the chosen battlefield
forced them into constrainedzones where the hoplite phalanx
could deliver a maximum shock.
The Greek commanders,particularly Pausanias,
recognised this advantage andsought to fight where their
strengths would be decisive.
Greek unity and cohesion alsoproved decisive.
The hoplites relied on eachman's commitment to his
(15:50):
neighbour, with shieldsoverlapping and ranks advancing
as a single entity.
In contrast, the Persian army,though formidable in size and
diversity, depended oncontingents operating with their
own methods and commandstructures.
When Mardonius fell,coordination collapsed rapidly
and the army's psychologicalresilience, less reinforced by
(16:10):
cohesion than the Greeks,dissolved in the face of a
concentrated phalanx.
Morale and motivation played anequally important role.
The Greeks fought on familiarground to defend their homes,
their polyes and their way oflife.
The Persians, despite theirskill and training, were an
occupying force operating farfrom the heart of their empire.
While discipline could holdlines under ordinary
(16:33):
circumstances, it could notcompensate for the sudden shock
of a concentrated frontalassault by determined heavy
infantry.
Finally, the timing andexecution of the Greek advance
magnified the effectiveness oftheir system.
By waiting for favourable omensand advancing in the full
formation at a decisive moment,they neutralised the Persian
(16:55):
advantage in mobility and rangedcombat.
What might have been a chaoticwithdrawal became, through
discipline and cohesion, anopportunity to strike decisively
.
In sum, the victory of thehoplites of Plataea was a
combination of factors theproper exploitation of terrain,
the psychological and socialcohesion of the Greek army and
(17:16):
the careful orchestration ofengagement by the commanders.
While the battle certainlyhighlighted the effectiveness of
the phalanx, it alsoillustrates that no systems of
warfare is universally superior.
Success depends upon theinterplay of environment,
leadership and circumstance.
Beyond the tactical andmaterial factors, plataea
(17:36):
carried profound cultural andideological significance for the
Greeks.
Herodotus presents the battlenot merely as a military
encounter, but as aconfrontation between two
fundamentally different ways oflife.
On one side stood the PersianEmpire, vast and multi-ethnic,
ruled from a distant monarchwith subjects drawn from across
the known world.
On the other stood the Greekcity-states, each fiercely
(17:59):
independent, bound together by asense of civic duty and
communal identity, andrepresented in the army by
citizen-soldiers fighting fortheir homes.
The hoplite phalanx itselfembodied this cultural ethos
Each man's survival and successdepended on the steadfast of his
neighbour.
A literal manifestation of theinterdependence central to Greek
society.
As Victor Davis Hanson observes,the phalanx was not only a
(18:20):
method of war.
Literal manifestation of theinterdependence central to Greek
society.
As Victor Davis Hanson observes, the phalanx was not only a
method of war, but also apolitical statement.
It demonstrated the ability forcitizens to organize
collectively, to subordinateindividual impulses to the good
of the polis and to wield thatunity effectively in combat.
(18:40):
In this light, the phalanx wasa reflection of the Greek ideal,
and Plataea became a validationof that ideal under the most
testing circumstances.
By contrast, the Persian army,while formidable, symbolised
imperial authority rather thancivic participation.
Its multi-ethnic opposition,reliance on mounted troops and
(19:04):
strategic mobility all reflectedthe practicalities of
controlling a vast empire ratherthan the cultivation of a
shared sense of civic duty.
Herodotus repeatedly highlightsthe psychological impact of
this contrast.
When the Greeks stood firm underthe missile fire or advanced
disciplined formation againstthe Persians, it was not simply
(19:25):
a matter of skill on a societycapable of instilling cohesion,
courage and purpose in itscitizens.
The outcome of Plataea,therefore, was interpreted by
the Greeks as more than amilitary victory.
It was a symbolic triumph offreedom over despotism, of
citizen-soldiers defending theirhomes against the imperial
system.
Over time, this interpretationwould be reinforced in the
(19:48):
historical memory of Greece,with Plataea celebrated as a
decisive moment when Greekvalues embodied in the phalanx
proved superior to the Persianmethod of warfare.
The battle thus became acultural touchstone, shaping the
Greek perceptions of themselvesand their place in the world
for generations to come.
The immediate consequences ofPlataea were both dramatic and
(20:11):
far-reaching.
With the death of Mardonius andthe rout of the Persian army,
the threat of a land-basedPersian invasion of Greece
effectively ended.
Herodotus recounts that thesurvivors of the Persian force
were pursued and cut down asthey retreated to the river and
their camp, marking a completereversal from the earlier phases
of the campaign.
For the Greeks, the victory wasnot merely tactical.
(20:34):
It secured the Peloponnese andmuch of the central Greece from
further Persian occupation,allowing the city-states to
consolidate and recover afteryears of conflict.
The legacy of Plataea extendedwell beyond the battlefield.
Militarily, it reinforced theperception that the hoplite
phalanx was a dominant form ofwarfare, capable of defeating
(20:55):
even the most skilled andnumerically superior opponents
when employed with disciplineand cohesion.
Greek confidence in the phalanxwould shape the strategic
thinking of city-states fordecades, influencing their
approach in subsequent conflicts, including the Peloponnesian
War.
The battle became a referencepoint for military theorists and
historians alike, a case studyin the interplay between tactics
(21:18):
, morale and the organisation ofcitizen armies.
Culturally and politically,plataea took on a symbolic
significance.
The Greeks framed the victoryas a triumph of freedom, unity
and civic responsibility overimperial domination.
The hoplite, once a practicalinstrument of war, became an
emblem of Greek identity and theideals of Apollos.
(21:40):
Cities celebrated the victorythrough monuments,
commemorations and storytelling,embedding Plataea into the
collective memory as a momentwhen Greek values had decisively
prevailed.
Yet the story also carries anote of irony.
While the phalanx had provedits effectiveness, later
conflicts would show the Greeksadopting and adapting elements
(22:02):
of the Persian system.
Cavalry, light infantry andmercenary forces became
increasingly important in theHellenistic armies.
Plataea, therefore, was not thefinal word on military
superiority, but a demonstrationof the power of a
well-disciplined citizen armyoperating under favourable
conditions.
It was a victory born ofcircumstances as much as skill,
(22:25):
but one whose immediate andenduring effects would resonate
across the Greek world.
In reflection on Plataea, onesees not only a battlefield
triumph, but a convergence ofstrategy, ideology and social
cohesion.
The clash of military systemsrevealed the strengths and its
limitations of each.
Yet it is the Greek narrative,the story of citizen-soldiers
(22:48):
holding firm against the vastempire, that has echoed through
history, shaping how the battlehas been remembered and
celebrated for over twomillennia.
Thank you all for yourcontingent support here on
Patreon.
I really do appreciate it.
We should now be able to stayon track with our monthly bonus
episodes, as I really do enjoycreating them.
Thanks again, and I'll see younext month, where we'll take a
(23:11):
closer look at Pausanias and theSpartan leadership around this
period.
You.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2
Season Two Out Now! Law & Order: Criminal Justice System tells the real stories behind the landmark cases that have shaped how the most dangerous and influential criminals in America are prosecuted. In its second season, the series tackles the threat of terrorism in the United States. From the rise of extremist political groups in the 60s to domestic lone wolves in the modern day, we explore how organizations like the FBI and Joint Terrorism Take Force have evolved to fight back against a multitude of terrorist threats.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com