The BATTLE of MARATHON: The Most IMPORTANT Battle in HISTORY?

Over 2,000 years ago, a council of Athenian officers were summoned on the slope of one of the mountains that look over the plain of Marathon on the eastern coast of Attica. The immediate subject of their meeting was to consider whether they should give battle to an enemy that lay encamped on the shore beneath them, but on the result of their deliberations depended not merely the fate of two armies, but the whole future progress of human civilization. Those are the opening words to Sir Edward Shepard Creasy's chapter on the Battle of Marathon. The first chapter of his book, The Fifteen Decisive Battles of History, Marathon marks the beginning of Creasy's list for the most important battle of all time. In this video, we'll be looking at the prelude, the battle itself, the people involved, and the overall impact of the battle, as well as Creasy's own words on the events. The Battle of Marathon took place during the Greco-Persian Wars and saw Athens face off against the forces of Persia on the eastern Greek coast. The outcome of the battle would in many ways determine the outcome of the Greco-Persian Wars, as well as the history of the Eurasian continent, and by extension, the world. But the story of Marathon doesn't actually start at Marathon. The year is 499 BC. The Persian Empire, also known as the Achaemenid Empire, was the most powerful force in the world, controlling almost 3 million square miles. From the Balkans in the west, to Egypt in the south, the Caucasus in the north, and the Indus River in the east. The empire was ruled by Darius I, but there is also an extensive bureaucracy. The empire was divided into provinces, called satrapies, each ruled by a satrap. The satrapies were further divided, with leaders known as tyrants controlling cities within the satrapy. One of these tyrants, named Aristagoras, controlled the Ionian city of Miletus. He attempts to invade the island of Naxos and claim it for the Persians. Unfortunately for him, the invasion failed, and Aristagoras' position was in question. He then peacefully was removed as tyrant and replaced by the empire. Except that's not what happened. Aristagoras decided to protect his position by leading a revolt against Persia. The revolt spread throughout the region, what is now Turkey, and became known as the Ionian Revolt. Now, where did the Greeks come in? Well, lots of people in the Ionian region were actually Greeks. As a result, some Greek states from the mainland helped the revolt. This came to a head in 498 BC, where Greek forces from Athens and Eretria defeated Persian forces at Sardis and burnt the city down. But Sardis wasn't just a regular city, it was the capital of the Lydian satrapy for the Persian empire. As a result, the Persians were humiliated and infuriated by the Greeks, and they vowed revenge. In 493 BC, the Ionian Revolt was crushed, and the Persians aimed their sights across the Aegean Sea to Greece itself, not only for revenge, but also to expand the empire and take away the agitator of the western part of the empire. The next year, the Persians invaded Greece and took control of Thrace and Macedon, before being wrecked by a storm and being forced to halt their progress. The Persians then sent ambassadors to each of the Greek states, demanding containers of water and earth from each of them to symbolize Persia's possession of the realm. All of the states obliged, except for Athens and Sparta, who killed their Persian emissaries. Darius was outraged even more, and in 491 BC, he launched a second campaign. Within the year, he took the islands of Naxos and Cyclades, and then quickly besieged and captured Eretria, one of the states who burned down Sardis. Finally, they were ready to take Athens. Moving down the eastern coast of Attica, the Persians landed on the beach of Marathon. It seemed that the Persians would have no trouble taking Greece. Greece, after all, was not a united force, unlike the Persian Empire. Instead, Greece was comprised of various independent states, such as Corinth, Sparta, and Athens. These states all had their own governments and militaries, which were often very different. Sparta was a monarchy with a massive slave underclass, while Athens was the world's first democracy, where leaders were elected by free men. But the Greeks were also united by a common culture, religion, and language. Still, that didn't stop them from fighting each other all the time, and ancient Greek history is characterized by infighting of these states, as we'll later see in Crecy's list. Since the Greek states weren't united, and in many cases at each other's throats, it seemed that a massive united empire would make quick work of them. But some Greeks, realizing this, decided to ally against the invading Persians. As the empire approached, Athens and Sparta, the two most powerful Greek states, made an alliance. But this was nullified at Marathon, since the Spartans were not able to march and fight due to a religious festival. Athens, however, had its own problems, chief among them the fact that they were a democracy. While by our modern standards that sounds great, it also meant that taking fast, decisive action was much harder, as many people with different ideas all had to agree on any action. As we saw at the beginning of the video, the decision of whether or not to engage the Persians at Marathon was decided by a group of 11 men. Had this happened 20 years earlier, however, this wouldn't have been the case. While Athens was a democracy most of the time, at certain points the government would be seized by a tyrant. The last tyrant of Athens, named Hippias, was ousted in 510 BC. Keep him in mind, as he'll become important later. But since Sparta was preoccupied, the Athenians' only ally at the battle was the small Greek state of Plasia, which Athens had helped years before in a war against Thebes. The odds didn't look good for the Greeks. The Persians had landed with a force of 25,000 infantry, 1,000 cavalry, as well as another 100,000 oarmen and 600 trirene ships. The Athenians, even with the Plasian reinforcements, only had about 10 or 11,000 men. But the 10 to 1 advantage in numbers wasn't the only thing the Persians had going for them. The Persian army also had a reputation for being undefeated. Throughout their conquests, the Persians had rarely, if ever, been beaten, and their rapid victories over the Greek states in the preceding years only solidified that. The Persian army was comprised of units of 10,000 men called Hevarabam. A Hevarabam was made out of 10 1,000-man units called Hazarabam, which was in turn comprised of 10 Sataba units, which were each made up of 10 10-man units called a Dathaba. Archers, sparabara, and heavy cavalry were the main components of the Persian forces. The front of the main formation was comprised of sparabara. Sparabara, or shield-bearers, were armed with rectangular 6-foot wicker shields called spara. On top of that, they would be armed with a 6-foot short spear with a metal counterweight on the back end. Behind the sparabara line were nine ranks of archers. These archers, armed with composite bows, were the main damage dealers of the Persian army. Firing in volleys over the sparabara, a Persian Hevarabam could fire 100,000 arrows in one minute. This was made even more effective when in tandem with the Persian heavy cavalry. The Persian heavy cavalry were armed with recurve bows and javelins. Together with the main forces, they would corral enemy forces into tight groups, which would be easy targets for the archers. If the enemy was already in tight formation, they would be scattered by the archer volleys and would then be picked off by the cavalry. Aside from spears and bows, Persian soldiers would also be armed with smaller weapons. The sagaris was a single-handed axe that would be used as a secondary weapon by the Persians. Axes were used more by the Persian army, but some soldiers used the akhenakes, a short sword with a blade between 14 and 18 inches long, double-edged and made out of iron, along with a lobed hilt. Persians wore very light armor, usually made of linen, but the legendary Persian immortals, who were not present at Marathon, often wore bronze lamellar armor. The Persian battle ethos was quantity over quality. Lots of troops firing lots of arrows tended to be very effective against most armies of the time. However, once the distance was closed, the Persians were at an advantage, as they weren't very well armored or trained for hand-to-hand combat. All of this was compounded by the fact that the Persian army was made up of conscripts from Persia's conquered lands, rather than patriotic soldiers loyal to Persian interests. This contrasted with the Greeks, however, which is where the Europeans were able to gain back some advantage. For one, Greek soldiers hailed from the land that they fought for, making them much more motivated than their Persian adversaries. The Greek style of fighting was also much more melee-based than the Persians, with little in the way of cavalry or missile fire. The bread and butter of the Greek army was the phalanx formation. Eight ranks deep, the phalanx consisted of heavy infantry armed with shields and spears. The front rank had their spears lowered, while the ranks behind them had their spears at graduated angles. The Greek forces were made up of soldiers known as hoplites. Hoplites were all armed with a spear called a dori. Between seven and ten feet long, these spears had an iron head with another spike on the rear end. This iron spike, called a saruder, was mainly a counterbalance, but could also be used as a secondary weapon if the main head broke off. Coupled with the dori was the hoplot, a circular wood and bronze shield three feet in diameter. The shield was very important to the Greeks, as it not only defended the user, but the man to their side. If all else failed, the hoplon could be used as a weapon by bashing opponents with the front or the edge. As a secondary weapon, hoplites carried the xiphos, a short sword with an 18-inch leaf-shaped blade. The Greek armor was also far superior to the Persians. The Corinthian helmet, covering most of the head and face, was made of bronze, often with a mane on top. The hoplite corais, also made of bronze, covered the body and back, while bronze greaves covered the lower legs. Also fighting with the hoplites were various irregular troops armed similarly to the Persians. Some of these troops, called peltasts, were lightly armed skirmishers, armed with a crescent-shaped pelti shield, and throwing javelins. Some irregulars, who usually had little or no armor like the Persians, used slings or bows as well. The irregular troops at Marathon were said to be armed with shields, javelins, and swords, such as a xiphos or kopis. Most of these irregular troops were slaves, and historically were not accounted for in force sizes or death tolls. As stated earlier, the Persians were ruled by an emperor. During the Battle of Marathon, the ruler of the Persian Empire was Darius the Great, aka Darius I. Darius came to rule the Persian Empire in 522 BC, after a coup that is to this day hotly debated. During his reign, he expanded the Achaemenid dynasty of the Persian Empire to its greatest extent, and was one of the most influential leaders the empire had ever seen. Under his rule, the empire was seen as invincible, and for good reason, given that they had taken over large swaths of the known world, and was the largest empire to ever exist to that point. But when the Athenians and Eretrians burned the city of Sardis, this image of invincibility was shaken. From the time he learned of Sardis' burning on, he held a grudge against the Greek states who slighted him, even appointing one of his servants to say every day to him, Sire, remember the Athenians. But Darius' issues with his foes at Marathon went deeper than the slight eight years before. He had another grudge, this one more personal, and longer lasting, for the emperor had crossed paths with the Athenian leader at Marathon years before. Before the word Athens was on his lips, Darius had found an enemy in the Athenian general, Miltiades. Miltiades, despite being an Athenian general at Marathon, did not always live in Athens. While he originally hailed from the city, he had since become the tyrant of Thracian Charonese, an area that is now the Gallipoli peninsula. Originally a Greek settlement, Thracian Charonese came into the fold of the Persian empire in 513 BC, and Miltiades became a subordinate to Darius. Relations started fine, with Miltiades accompanying Darius north in a campaign against the Scythians. But during the campaign, their relations soured. Miltiades, along with other tyrants, were charged with guarding a bridge crossing the Danube river. Darius and his forces crossed the river to fight the Scythians, but were unsuccessful in their endeavors. Hearing this, Miltiades proposed to his comrades to destroy the bridge, and leave Darius and his forces to die. The other leaders with him were shocked by this proposal, and refused, allowing Darius to return safely. But Miltiades' plan was reported to Darius, and the emperor's feelings towards the tyrant became vengeful. Surprisingly, Miltiades was able to retain his position as tyrant for some time, albeit unstably, and had to leave several times throughout the following years. Miltiades once again slighted Darius years later, by joining the Ionian revolt against the Persians. During this time, he left Charonese, and actually worked with the Athenians, capturing the islands of Lemnos and Imbros for them. Lands which the city had claim over, but had failed to actually control for quite some time. Unfortunately for Miltiades, the revolt came to an end, and in 492 BC, he had to flee Persian forces and land in Athens. Upon arrival, the city was divided on what to do with him. Athenians had just recently gotten rid of a tyrant, and many were uneasy to bring one into their midst. Still, his conquest of Lemnos and Imbros for Athens won most of them over, and he became a democratically elected general of Athens. Athens had 10 generals elected every year, as well as a war ruler, or polemarch. While Miltiades was one of the elected generals, the polemarch at the time of Marathon was a man known as Callimachus. During the deliberations described at the beginning of the video, Callimachus found himself the tiebreaker vote. Five of the Athenian generals wanted to wait for the Spartan reinforcements and take shelter in the city. The other five, including Miltiades, wanted to engage the Persians before they could fully prepare for battle. Callimachus had not yet voted, but after a rousing speech from Miltiades, he voted to attack the Persians on the beach. Down on that beach, the Persian forces were led by two men. Datus was a general for Persia, and is believed to have been quite experienced and proven in battle. It's thought that Datus was in sole command given his experience and prowess in battle. His co-commander, Atrophernus, was the son of the satrap of Sardis, and was presumably in his position for nepotic reasons. But Datus and Atrophernus were joined by a third man, already mentioned in the video, Hippias. After being expelled from Athens, Hippias had found favor with the Persians, and offered his services for the invasion, hoping to restore his position as tyrant of the Greek city-state. It is even said that Hippias himself pointed out the beach of Marathon to land the Persian forces, as that was where his father had landed when he first conquered Athens decades ago. The beach that Hippias pointed out to the invading Persians was an advantageous battlefield. Shaped like a crescent, the beach itself was about 6 miles or 9.7 kilometers long, and flat for about 2 miles 3.2 kilometers inland at its center, getting narrower at the ends. Past that were the mountains of the Attica peninsula. These limestone mountains were steep and covered in trees, making any formation fighting impossible. There was a valley in the mountains leading into the center of the beach, which is where the Greek forces would descend onto the Persians. On either end of the Marathon beach were marshes as well. While they were dry during the summer months, they were flooded at the time of Marathon, further narrowing the battlefield. Today, the field of Marathon is mostly swampland and trees, and is almost unrecognizable compared to the time of the battle. While the large expanse of flatland was advantageous for the Persians, and would give them ample time to rain arrows on the heads of the approaching Greeks, the marshes on either end of the beach would limit their cavalry's ability to flank the opponents. The Athenians in the mountains, meanwhile, were able to see everything the Persians did, while hiding their own movements, as well as having the ability to start the battle whenever they wanted, on their own terms. Finally, during the afternoon of a day in September 490 BC, the Greek forces descended into the field of Marathon to give battle. On the far left of their formation, the Pelasgians were all arrayed together, while Callimachus led the right wing. All of the Athenian soldiers were placed with other men in their own tribes, so as to strengthen every fighter's resolve for his country and kin. But since the battlefield was too wide for the Greek forces to have their eight-ranked phalanxes throughout their line, with their smaller army, Miltiades had to improvise. Instead, the middle of the Greek formation would be four ranks deep, while the flanks would remain at eight. This way, while his center would likely break, his forces wouldn't be outmaneuvered, and the army could continue to fight. The Persian forces, meanwhile, were not as well prepared. The Persian cavalry, one of their biggest advantages over the Greeks, did not make an appearance at Marathon. To this day, it is not known exactly why. Perhaps the Persians were trying to bait the Greeks into a attack, perhaps the marshes made it too difficult to field the cavalry effectively, or maybe the Greeks simply caught them by surprise. Still, the Persians were able to field between 20,000 and 25,000 men, ready to meet the 10,000 or 11,000 Greeks in battle. The Persians were arrayed in a more conventional rectangular formation, with their sparabara shieldmen in front, protecting the archers, which made up the main bulk of the force. As soon as they came in range, the Persians rained arrows down on the advancing Greeks. However, Miltiades was expecting this, and instead of a standard march into battle, he led his men to the Persians at a run. The faster he could close the distance, the less effective the Persians could be. Despite wearing heavier bronze armor and shields, and carrying long spears, the hoplites were trained for runs, and could manage a fast pace without getting tired or breaking formation. As Herodotus reports, When the Persians saw the Athenians running down on them, without horse or bowmen, in scanty numbers, they thought them a set of madmen rushing upon certain destruction. But no such destruction of the Greeks occurred. Suffering minimal losses from the Persian arrows, they closed the distance fast, and a brutal melee ensued. On came the Greeks, with one unwavering line of leveled spears, against which the light targets, the short lances and scimitars of the Orientals, offered weak defense. The front rank of Asiatics must have gone down to a man at the first shock. Still, they recoiled not, but strove by individual gallantry, and the weight of numbers, to make up for the disadvantage of weapons and tactics, to bear back the shallow lines of the Europeans. Outnumbered two to one, the Greeks put up a fight, their longer spears and better armor, training, and tactics, proving to be a massive advantage at close range. Wicker shields burst, axes clanged against bronze armor, and spearheads sprouted from men. Eventually, the Greek center was broken, as it was only four ranks deep, and they retreated, the Persian center falling. The Greek flanks, however, stood strong, and were able to wedge the Persian forces between them, and virtually encircle them, decimating the forces. The larger army, now facing attacks on multiple fronts, was defeated. Seeing that they were outdone, the remaining Persians retreated to their ships on the coast. During this route, many Persians died, but the Greeks also broke ranks, and most of the Greek deaths in the battle happened at this time. Even the Greek polemarch, Callimachus, was slain. Still, the Greeks were able to capture seven galleys from the Persians, and the battle itself was over. By the battle's end in the evening, 6,400 Persians had been killed, with only 192 Athenians slain, according to Herodotus, that is, and these figures have since been disputed. The Persian threat was not finished, however, as the Persians who had escaped did not simply retreat. Rather, they set sail for Athens, hoping to capture the city while the Greeks were still at Marathon. Knowing this, the Greeks quickly marched through the night and arrived back at the city before it was too late. In the morning, when the Persians arrived in the Athenian harbor, they saw the same army that had just defeated them a few hours before, standing ready on the heights. The Persians knew they had lost, and finally set sail for home, abandoning their conquest for Athens. On the return journey, Hippias, the former Athenian who had hoped to regain his title as tyrant for the Persians, died. The Spartans, finally able to march after their holiday, at first did not believe that the small Athenian force had repelled the Persians. They had to see for themselves, arriving at Marathon days later, and looked upon the plane strewn with the Persian dead. The slain Athenians were eventually buried in a mound at Marathon, with ten columns surrounding it and the names of the dead engraved. While the columns are long gone, the mound is still there to this day. The mound isn't the only legacy of the battle however. The 26-mile race, known as the Marathon, also came out of this battle, although the story behind it is actually a myth. Legend has it that after the battle, an Athenian runner named Pheidippides ran from Marathon to Athens to announce the victory, dying of exhaustion as he issued his proclamation. In reality, the myth is a combination of two real events. Pheidippides really did exist, but his run was the much more impressive 140 miles from Athens to Sparta before the battle, as he asks the Spartans for help with the Athenians against the Persians. He covered this distance in one day, but the distance from Marathon to Athens, 26 miles, which the Marathon is actually modeled after, was actually covered overnight by the Athenian troops who had just finished the battle and had to return to the city to defend it from the Persian counter-attack. The battle of Marathon was not just an ordinary battle between two armies, rather, it determined the fate of Western civilization. It is highly probable that had the Persians won at Marathon, they would have taken all of Greece. While at first this seems like it would just be another addition to their empire, it would actually be much more than that. Greek culture is foundational to Western civilization as we know it, and its influence extends through Europe and North America even to this day. Concepts of democracy, science, art, teleology, philosophy, language, and education were all born out of Greece, and these concepts have become the most powerful movers of human civilization in the world. From elections, to perspective and paintings, to Socratic thinking and the scientific method, and even a large part of the English language, Greece has fundamentally shaped the way the world is today. That is not to say that no other society had influences on world history, but Greece is perhaps the most important culture the world has ever seen. So, what happens if the Persians win at Marathon? Greece falls, and with it all other contributions to the world, the West in particular. While the Persian empire wouldn't last forever, it is almost certain that Europe would not become a global seat of power over the following millennia. Rather, it would be a backwater, and serve as a frontier for Asiatic societies to expand into and influence. England, Rome, and America would not be world powers in their respective times, replaced instead by empires from the Middle East and Central Asia. Without the Greek victory at Marathon, the world we live in would be radically different in ways we cannot predict. In some ways it could be better, but in many ways it would be worse, and without Marathon going as it did, none of the other battles on this list would have ever happened. In his analysis of the battle, Sir Edward Shepard Creasy comes to some similar conclusions. It is worth noting, however, that his perspective is more black and white than mine. Creasy, after all, wrote this book in the mid-19th century, at the height of British imperial power. Ideas of Eurocentrism, barbarity of extra-European civilizations, and general all-around racism were the norm at this time. Many of Creasy's perspectives in this work are rooted in these ideas. That is not to say that everything he believes is wrong, however, or that his eye for historical happenings and impacts is totally off-base, but merely to point out that his preconceptions of the world are less informed than today's. People were still very smart hundreds of years ago, even if we don't think of them that way, and while many of their ideas seem crazy to us today, our modern ideas and conceptions were built off of theirs, and to discredit our predecessors wholly as ignorant bigots is a disservice to reality and to history as a whole. So, what does Creasy say about Marathon's impact? One of Creasy's more scathing critiques of the Persians and Asiatic societies in general is the lack of evolution. Creasy draws a comparison between European societies, which are ever-changing in order to compete with each other, much like how businesses compete in a free market, and getting better as time goes on as a result of this competition. Asiatic societies, in Creasy's opinion, tend to be much more static and despotic, noting that Eastern empires tend to be very large and ruled by one person, thereby being more stagnant and unchanging until it collapses and is replaced, either by an internal usurper or an external invasion. Interestingly, a similar argument is actually made by Jared Diamond in his acclaimed book Guns, Germs, and Steel, regarding why Europe became the dominant global power instead of the Middle East or China. Diamond's explanation is more based around geography and environmental factors, mind you, but it is interesting to see how both men came to similar conclusions, despite starting from very different premises. As for the historical accuracy of this claim, again, it's not as black and white as he makes it out to be. Various Asiatic empires throughout history have been very fluid and responsive, as well as long-lasting, such as the Ottoman Empire. Conversely, various European states have been too rigid and unchanging, eventually losing their power, like Spain in the 16th century or even Alexander the Great's empire after his death. Still, his generality identifies a trend that certainly existed, although the level to which it is accurate has fluctuated with time. In terms of the battle's impact, Crecy had this to say, Nor was there any power to the westward of Greece that could have offered an effectual opposition to Persia. Rome was at this time in her season of utmost weakness. Carthage had escaped the Persian yoke, but this could not have been relied on for long. If we turn to Spain or northern Europe, we shall find nothing but savage Finns, Celts, Slavs, and Teutons. The infant energies of Europe would have been trodden out beneath the universal conquest, and the history of the world would become a record of the rise and fall of despotic dynasties, and the mental and political prostration of millions beneath the diadem, the tiara, and the sword. Here again we see the prediction that a loss for the Athenians at Marathon would spell doom for every European civilization, and its future as a whole. Rome and Carthage indeed were likely to not emerge victorious from a Persian campaign. Sparta could have fared better, but it would likely require lots of luck and military genius, both of which the Athenians had, in which the Spartans were likely to lack at the time. A large part of the Athenian victory, after all, was the lack of cavalry and the unpreparedness of the Persians, which could only happen when they were initially beaching, not when a full-scale invasion had already commenced. It is also interesting to note that the oblique order that Miltiades arrayed his forces in was never again seen in Greek warfare, lending credence to the idea that it is unlikely anyone else in Greece could have developed that winning strategy. Crecy's characterization of Asiatic societies being unstable shows up again, and paints a bleak picture of counter-history for the world. Whether his prediction is what would actually happen is of course impossible to discern, but he is almost certainly correct that Europe would not rise to prominence the same way it has done historically. In terms of the hard facts that Crecy gives, the only ones that are disputable are the numbers of the battle. Some put the number of Greek troops a little higher, but Crecy's guess is in line with the most reliable sources. In terms of casualties, many modern estimates paint a much different picture. While Herodotus, Crecy's main source, gave the numbers of 192 and 6,400 of the Athenian and Persian forces killed respectively, modern estimates put the Greek dead between 1 and 3,000, with only 4 or 5,000 Persians killed. Marathon is a classic example of history being written by the victor, and Herodotus was known for some dubious claims in his recorded histories. It is interesting to note, however, that there are no Persian sources of the battle of Marathon, presumably because the empire did not want that stain on their record. Some later accounts of the battle even paint completely different pictures of the battle of Marathon. Although the sources for these accounts are not apparent, and Herodotus is generally seen as the most reliable source. Overall, I find it very hard to dispute Crecy on the significance of Marathon. While the degree to which he claims the world would be worse can easily be debated, the fact that Marathon was deeply important to history is undebatable. Of all the 15 battles on Crecy's list, this is perhaps the strongest entry. Crecy ends his chapter on Marathon with a final summation of its impact on the immediate events afterward and the history of the world, saying, The day of Marathon is the critical epoch in the history of two nations. It broke forever the spell of Persian invincibility, which had paralyzed men's minds. It generated among the Greeks the spirit which beat back Xerxes, and afterwards led to Xenophon, Agasillus, and Alexander, in terrible retaliation through their Asiatic campaigns. It secured for mankind the intellectual treasures of Athens, the growth of free institutions, the liberal enlightenment of the Western world, and the gradual ascendancy for many ages to the great principles of European civilization. Marathon allowed Athens to fight another day, and fight they did. Over the next few decades, Athens would expand from its lonely position on the Attica peninsula to a sort of empire of the Mediterranean, establishing colonies and coalitions around the Greek world. Infighting among the Greek states would resume, and eventually Athens would become the power that had to be stopped. The Peloponnesian Wars would break out, with Sparta leading the resistance against the city that was once the West's saving grace. These powers would collide in the second entry on Crecy's list, at the Battle for Syracuse. So thanks for watching this video guys, hope you found it entertaining and informative. The next video in this series will be looking at the Battle of Syracuse in 413 BC. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share the video if you enjoyed it, and I hope to see you guys next time.