Liberates the opressed peoples of the median empire

And remind me, how did Persia gain control of Sardis in the first place?

none of the colonies subjugated by Persia were clients of Athens, and iirc Athens sacked Sardis well before Persia did take the Athenian client colonies on the Chersonese. Athens sacked Sardis as part of an unprovoked, premeditated war of aggression that would have evolved into a full on invasion of at least Anatolia if the Athenians hadn't pussied out after Sardis.

Also, Athenian diplomats had around that time willingly submitted to Darius. Without authority, mind, but the Persians had no reason to believe that. So to Darius the sacking of Sardis seemed like an unprovoked backstab right after a declaration of submission in good faith.

Though historically the real reason Athens probably sacked Sardis was to destabilize Persian control of Anatolia, the Hellespont and Thrace, since it threatened their trade power in the regions of the Black Sea and their goldmines of retarded Scythians.

>why did Persia end up as the "bad guys" in modern pop culture?
Because the bad guys in pop culture are always the good guys by modern standards.

Croesus of Lydia launched an unprovoked raid into Persian land west of the River Halys at Pteria, then ran crying back to his castle when he got his shit stomped in and like a retard fired his mercenaries to save money while thinking he could last a few months until reinforcements from Sparta, Egypt and Babylon could arrive.

>none of the colonies subjugated by Persia were clients of Athens
Athens was inhabited by Ionians, the Ionians were the Greek tribe that founded the Greek colonies of Central Western Asia Minor circa 1500 - 1000 B.C. thus the name Ionia named after them, the inhabitants of the region were kinsmen of the Athenians and as the ancient Greek custom between the colony and the Metropolis obliged, Athens had to protect them.
Ionian Revolt : "The Ionian Revolt, and associated revolts in Aeolis, Doris, Cyprus and Caria, were military rebellions by several Greek regions of Asia Minor against Persian rule, lasting from 499 BC to 493 BC. At the heart of the rebellion was the dissatisfaction of the Greek cities of Asia Minor with the tyrants appointed by Persia to rule them, along with the individual actions of two Milesian tyrants, Histiaeus and Aristagoras. The cities of Ionia had been conquered by Persia around 540 BC, and thereafter were ruled by native tyrants, nominated by the Persian satrap in Sardis. In 499 BC, the tyrant of Miletus, Aristagoras, launched a joint expedition with the Persian satrap Artaphernes to conquer Naxos, in an attempt to bolster his position. The mission was a debacle, and sensing his imminent removal as tyrant, Aristagoras chose to incite the whole of Ionia into rebellion against the Persian king Darius the Great. "
Phrynichus (tragic poet) : "He gained his first victory in a drama contest in 511 BC. His famous play, the Capture of Miletus or the Sack of Miletus, was probably composed shortly after the conquest of that city by the Persians during the Ionian Revolt. Miletus was a colony of Athens and therefore traditionally held especially dear to the mother city. The audience was moved to tears by Phrynichus' tragedy, with the poet being fined "ὡς ὑπομνήσας οἰkεῖα kαkά", "for reminding familiar misfortunes". As a result, the play was banned from being performed again. (Herodotus 6.21.10)"

Then they become narcissists. Ardashir I installed the idea of Iranian and none Iranian. They started oppressing the none Iranic minorities in the empire. They were so full of themselves that they didn't take the Arabs seriously.

They deserved it for supporting Hellenic revolts in Asia Minor and even burning down the satrap's capital.

Embarrassing desu

They attacked "our" "ancestors."

Herodotus.

Lol fuck no

No no no this is so fucking bad mixing up mycenean colonies with the iron age ones

Greeks
>the individual
>democracy

Persia
>the state
>absolute ruler of the world

I'd say it was the fact that most of our modern values was first founded in Greece in the aftermath of the Persian wars. And so if Persia had won, some historians say that none of that would've happened, and so Persia becomes the bad guys in hindsight due to what they were about to strange in the crib.
As an empire they were that bad at all, they had sick roads and a mail service, and I've read that slavery was forbidden in Zoroastrianism and was almost unheard of in the Persian empire, but I dont know how much bullshit that is.

Greek myths like hoplits can fight with persians and win in a field battle

Greeks
>"the individual"
>slavery
Persians
>no slavery

daily reminder that not even the Greeks saw them as bad guys

For similar meme reasons as why Ancient Egypt is reduced to an insult and a punchline in GT.

GT?

>Race mixing is communism
What did they mean by this?

Sorry, GT is Gamla Testamentet (Old Testament) in swedish.

they were tyrants

user, the ionian colonies in Turkey had entirely divorced from Athens and Attica as a whole well before the Persian War. They had their own agendas, concrete politics and governing bodies. Nobody in ancient Greece gave half a fuck about shared ethnic lineage. Aristagoras, the guy who fucking started the Revolt, didn't even go to Athens first when seeking allies to aid in his proposed march against Persia.

>what was Marathon

Because they opposed ancient greece which is the cornerstone of our culture.

A close battle that the Greeks had to a sudden charge in order to avoid the Persian's archers and cavalry. Marathon is the only time the Greeks engaged the Persians in open ground. At Plataia they refused to budge from the hills despite harrasment from the Persians and lack of supplies. The Greeks were the ones fighting in hills, irregular terrain and bottlenecks.

because the Jews

thats literally it

Cyrus was an Aryan

>the retard who cries like a bitch about persia getting BTFO

Persia was 1000% a better place to live in as an average person than Greece. Greece was a land of savages and slaves and constant bloodshed. Meanwhile in Persia they had established complex tax systems, religious freedom, paid artisans for high skilled labor, female workers had paid maternity leave and INSURANCE for fucks sakes. We even have their stone "receipts" all over the place. There was not a better place to live in ancient times than Persia.

Want to practice your non-zoroastrian religion? That is fine, just pay a small tax to the king. that's literally all they demanded of you. Not to mention advanced engineering of aqueduct systems (qanats), the first refrigerators powered by wind, jacuzzis powered by methane, and so on. Persia is the most underrated civilization in history

Persia wasn't "BTFO". They did pretty decent for themselves.

>Greece was a land of savages and slaves and constant bloodshed
As opposed to Persia, which didn't have slaves, but instead was a land of constant inter-ethnic bloodshed and rebellions.

>Meanwhile in Persia they had established complex tax systems
Which was only necessary to develop in the first place because Persia was a vast empire that had subjugated countless different ethnic groups, all with their own circumstances, customs etc.

>religious freedom
So did the Greek city states. This isn't medieval Europe or Middle East we're talking about. As long as you respected the local gods and customs you could worship whatever you wanted.

>paid artisans for high skilled labor
Again, so did the Greek cities. In fact skilled labour was far more valued in the Hellenic world, as there were fewer artisans around due to the lower population and the cultural appreciation of art.

>female workers had paid maternity leave and INSURANCE for fucks sakes
This is the only thing that is unique to Perisa, at least compared to Greeks, as far as I'm aware, and it doesn't mean much beyond being a mark of a very different societal organization. One in which women could not rely on their family, relatives and community to support and protect them.

>Persia is the most underrated civilization in history
It is, but that doesn't make it an ancient utopia. At the end of the day, it was still an empire that enacted tribute from militarily subjugated population with the threat of bloodshed and slaughter.

>implying there is a single civilization in history which did not have "inter ethnic bloodshed and rebellions"

>implying the tax system created by the persians was not the model to which all future civilizations would follow

>implying the greeks and romans didn't kill tons of religious minorities, especially jews

>implying the Greeks didn't use massive amounts of slave labor

>never said it was a utopia, but simply that hte plot of the average person and their standard of living was higher in Persia than in Greece

And that doesn't change the fact that Marathon was a decisive Greek victory with only roughly 200 dead (an attested number) against untold Persian losses (certainly not the 6400 Herodotus cites, realistically the retreat was caused by the Athenians reaching the ships)

>implying the Greeks didn't use massive amounts of slave labor
Source on that? Personal slavery sure, but their construction projects were privatized, or at most reliant on conscripted civilian labor from what I understand.
And you better not cite Helots as slaves.

>Persians
>>no slavery
citation?

Wow you mean an army using strategy and tactics to defeat a numerically superior opponent?! That's not a fair fight! They should have met their armies on a featureless flat plain just like in my total war games!

>helots aren't slaves

Isnt that how the Greeks fought prior to the Pelopennisian War?

>second class citizenship is the same as being an object with absolutely no rights or legal protections

Because we have more sources from the Greeks

>the most brutal of chattel slavery is the only form of slavery

Not always but yeah. Most Greek battles were two hoplite formations, with some skirmishers and maybe cavalry, that met on a whatever flat area was available and duked it out until one side broke and fled or retreated. The reason they were like that is because they used these battles to settle relatively minor territorial disputes; No point in waging total war over a patch of olive trees.

This view is pretty outdated. The Greeks waged war with an almost genocidal intend against each other. Ill give you a more indepth answer once I get on my compiter.

Did battles like that not happen then at all or where they less common or in the minority compared to full scale war?

Slavery and citizenship, even 2nd class citizenship, are not comparable you retard

This is just fucking wrong and hilariously retarded. The idea that the Greeks even fought in formations prior to the Persian and Peloponnesian wars is outdated as hell, only Thessalians and Thracians had numerable cavalry, and the distinction between armored hoplite and skirmisher was one of individual wealth, not intentional recruitment.
Also 'Genocidal' is a bit of an overstatement, but individual polities HATED each other and employed all kinds of cheap shots and strategies (the Phocians buried giant pots underground in a mountain pass to break the legs of Thessalian cavalry, for example).
The strategic and resource-based Arms Race happening in Greece is what set it up to actually face the Persians and eventually for Macedon to completely conquer most Persian land.

Not at all. Didn't happen. A battle between two Greek city states was either for direct control of a city, or a strategic action to eliminate (read: slaughter or imprison) the men of that city so that a seige would not be necessary.
Routing only really happened in sea battles; intelligent Greek commanders chose their battles carefully to eliminate the possibility of a rout for their enemies.

The big difference between Eastern and Greek warfare was that in Asia you had huge tracts of undeveloped land with autonomous settlements that could be controlled by occupation alone, meaning you only needed to drive off the present military forces and not kill and dismantle them. In Greece, a victory was taking a wealthy, powerful city or cities, which required constant sieging and/or political dominance.

The Persians quite notably thought nothing of climbing up the walls of Sardis and destroying the town completely (according to Herodotus, at least, which is a romanticized telling) and a similar attitude in Ionia and even Eretria meant the Persians took control of cities fast but never really held them if they didn't submit voluntarily. For the Greeks such a quick turnover was untenable, and every effort was made to dismantle the possibility of revolt (including battlefield slaughter of the defending forces).

Youre basically saying what Herodotus made Mardonius say in oder to convince Xerses to approve of the Greek invasion. The gist is that mardonius is telling the Great King the Greeks fought in a type of warfare that suited them, pitched battle in the open plains. Theres a similar account with another advisor trying to get the Spartan king to invade Persia. Thats just a simple version, Ill give you a detailed rundown later.

Aristagoras' account of Persian Warfare to Cleomenes doesn't really align the same way, but both statements are equally propagandistic

this

>The idea that the Greeks even fought in formations prior to the Persian and Peloponnesian wars
I'm gonna need a source on that because it sounds ridiculous. Even if they didn't even intent to fight in formation, the aspis pretty much forces hoplites to fight in closely grouped units. It's heavy, unwieldy and leaves the right side exposed. Not suited for an open melee at all.

>only Thessalians and Thracians had numerable cavalry
I know, hence why I said "maybe cavalry".

>and the distinction between armored hoplite and skirmisher was one of individual wealth, not intentional recruitment.
Again, I know and nowhere did imply otherwise. What I meant is that skirmishers weren't considered hoplites, they had other terms for them like peltasts or psiloi, and that they were generally present in relatively small numbers, nothing else.

its in every account of warfare prior to the tale ends of Thucydides' account of battles of the Peloponessian War. Greeks did not fight in intentional formations (and certainly not something as structured as the Macedonian Phalanx) for most of their history.
Hell at Marathon they just charged the Persian line and were fortunate that their flanks were deep enough in ranks that the cavalry couldn't smash them, so when the center began to fold the Greeks turned inwards and surrounded the Persian center on three sides.
The Spartans fought with even less of a regard for formation, preferring blunt charges at opportune times or using feinting charges to draw Persians towards their most defensable point such as at Thermopylae.

The Greeks didn't develop infantry formations until late in the Peloponessian War because they didn't have anything in the way of cavalry or archers to work around.

Ok I don't disagree with what you're saying, but in an infantry versus infantry battle where they approach each other instead of ambushing or charging, the end result would still be essentially a line formation for at least the first two to three ranks, as the nature of their equipment and of the fighting itself would necessitate it to ensure the safety the hoplites; The first rank in order to protect itself by keeping their shields close together if not locked, depending on what the situation calls for, and the second and third ranks in order to attack safely and without endangering the hoplites around them with their spears.

The aspis doesnt force anyone to fight in tight formation. If used sideways it offers good protection. Aside from that Greek hoplites ran into battle screaming and shouting so its not possible for them to maintain such tight formation on the move.

a press is not a formation and your conception of how bulky and restricting the Argive Shield was is incorrect. Reminder that many surviving argive shields are solid bronze decorative pieces, a battlefield aspis was leather on flexible wood on a veneer of bronze which would be thicker/more intricate depending on individual wealth.

That's not an aspis user, that's a pelte (at least stylistically). With that overhand pose, that hoplite is probably throwing a javelin, not stabbing with a 6-9 foot spear (not saying hoplites didn't use overhand thrusts before autists jump in).

Its more to illustrate the point. Also from Hans van Wees' book:

>Classical hoplites must indeed have fought more like Romans than Macedonians, since they not only wielded their weapons energetically (see below), but instead of the Roman short sword used spears up to eight feet long, pointed at both ends.
> The classical phalanx can therefore hardly have operated with intervals of much less than six feet (1.8m; see fig 17), enough for neighbours in the ranks to swing their arms fully extended without hitting one another. The ' protection ' of which Thucydides spoke was therefore not direct cover provided by a neighbour's shield, but the general protection of having a friend close by: at six feet a man was still with a spear's thrust from his neighbour which would have deterred enemy soldiers from trying to enter the gap
Van Wees, 2004: 185-186

When held like that it leaves both of your sides exposed if there are no other hoplites to your flanks. The enemy isn't going to just attack you with just straightforward strikes; You'd need to actively parry blows from your left and right with it, and that's too slow and exhausting thanks to it's weight.
The eight figure shield in your picture is indeed more suited to fighting outside of formations as it is much lighter, but it was phased out of use completely by the classical period.

Also, hoplites screaming and shouting when charging doesn't mean they charged every single time they engaged the enemy.

Most accounts of battle show them charging into the enemy. Thucydides was awestruck when he described the Spartans going into battle calmy, in step to the soind of flutes:

>After this followed the battle. The Argives and their confederates marched to the charge with great violence and fury. But the Lacedaemonians slowly and with many flutes, according to their military discipline, not as a point of religion, but that, marching evenly and by measure, their ranks might not be distracted, as the greatest armies, when they march in the face of the enemy, use to be. Thuc. 5.70

Most surviving accounts tell us that Hoplites went screaming and running into battle.

hoplites charged every time they encountered enemies though. Again, see Herodotus, Xenophon and most battles described by Thucydides.
And no Greeks weren't out parrying and riposting on the battlefield like fucking Dark Souls, most hoplites had no training at all and the few that did were either veterans or taught gymnastics by veterans. Not actual fucking warfare.
The entire thing with the argive shield was the shoulder strap which allowed the shield to rest on your shoulder and brace it against yourself.

Pick up a damn book user, come on

Interesting points, but its also likely that representations of Hoplites in art favored the overhand thrust pose for its aesthetic value; the underhand thrust allows for closer formations and was the form most likely adopted by Alexander's Hoplites at the height of the phalanx. It is valid to point out that Greeks didn't fight like Romans, though: the Romans got their sword favoritism from the Iberians by way of Carthage.

>why did Persia end up as the "bad guys" in modern pop culture?
Because without him, we wouldn't have the ((((Jews))))

A press is not all that happened in phalanx melees. They didn't just charge shield first at the enemy without even trying to stab them with their spears. When approaching they would reach a point where they would be just outside of the reach of the enemy, when that happened is when both sides would start fighting, trying to snipe enemy hoplites with their spears. And if a press did happen, it would most likely be the result of an opening created by said sniping, not a random charge.
Also I'm very well aware of how their shields were made and their weight, I'm not confusing their weight with votive offerings when I'm saying they were very heavy.

So you are saying greeks who mocked barbarians fought exactly like them?

kek

false equivalency my dude, but i shouldnt have expected much from such an abject persiaboo

The Greeks were stubborn amatuers who failed epicly even trying to do basic military manouvers. As I said Ill give a more in depth post once I get on my computer.

the absolute fucking state of Veeky Forums
No, Barbarians didn't typically fight in pitched melee presses but preferred missile troops and skirmishers (peltasts, archers and such). Also Barbarian to a Greek meant 'didn't speak Greek'

First of all that is not a description I would call "awe struck", more of a description of how unusual a sight their calmness was. Secondly, charging does not mean they literately just started racing to see who could reach the enemy first. It's not a binary between a slow pace and wildly running until you crash on the enemy. It's a preposterously stupid thought that goes pretty much against all ideas of how people who didn't want to die fought.

I'm not saying they were trained warriors you imbecile, I'm describing to you what they would need to do to not die if they fought like you think they fought. And no, there were people who taught actual fighting, they were called hoplomachi. Pic related.

>Pick up a damn book user, come on
You should pick up any kind of shield and then an aspis to compare them to each other.

...

The concept of NOT forcing your religious or cultural views and beliefs on subject nations after conquering or forcing them to submit to your power is pretty unique to Achaemenid Persia. Its one of the main reasons why besides their excellent organizational and administrative systems why their empire endured as long as it did over such vast territories and so many peoples within its aegis. Bigger issue I have is most modern historians and views in the West treat the Persians as being disorganized in the way they conducted their wars when the truth is very much the opposite of that.

Even the Battle of Marathon while decisive for the Greeks, was much more of a contested battle than a single sided slaughter. I think even Herodotus himself states that the Persians were hampered by many of their allied troops routing from the flanks while the core of Persian and Median troops were hemmed in the center and even then he states they gave a good accounting for themselves despite being out-gunned relatively speaking in armor.

>hold his Place in the line

doesnt sound like rushing

and as you said running at the enemx is suicide

How is it not awestruck? How is Thucydides not describing the Spartans to his ignorant Greek audience? Notice that Thucydides tells us that most Greek armies are distracted when they march to face their enemies in contrast to the Spartan's being able to march in step. Meaning most Greek armies must have been a clumsy mess of men. On top of that Thucydides describes that flute players are not for religious purpose rather they're for military purpose showing us that it was an alien concept except to the Spartans.

>Secondly, charging does not mean they literately just started racing to see who could reach the enemy first

>And when, as they proceeded, a part of the phalanx billowed out, those who were thus left behind began to run; at the same moment they all set up the sort of war-cry which they raise to Enyalius,1 and all alike began running. It is also reported that some of them clashed their shields against their spears, thereby frightening the enemy's horses. Xen. Anab. 1.8.18

Mind you this was the veteran mercenary army of the Ten Thousand who struggle to contain themselves at a charge

>Now as the opposing armies were coming together, there was deep silence for a time in both lines; but when they were distant from one another about a stadium, the Thebans raised the war-cry and rushed to close quarters on the run. When, however, the distance between the armies was still about three plethra, the troops whom Herippidas commanded, and with them the Ionians, Aeolians, and Hellespontines, ran forth in their turn from the phalanx of Agesilaus, and the whole mass joined in the charge and, when they came within spear thrust, put to flight the force in their front. As for the Argives, they1 did not await the attack of the forces of Agesilaus, but fled to Mount Helicon. Xen. Hell. 4.3.17

>And yet the Spartans, who were of all men past masters in the art of war, trained and accustomed themselves to nothing so much as not to straggle or get into confusion upon a change of formation, but to take anyone without exception as neighbour in rank or in file, and wheresoever danger actually threatened, to seize that point and form in close array and fight as well as ever. Plut. Pel. 23.3

> It happens that, the greater is the number of soldiers, the more they are apt to blunder. Either they scatter deliberately in search of provisions, or they are so careless of order on the march that some get too far ahead, while others lag too far behind. Xen. Cav. 7.9

Also since I'm on my PC get ready for a lengthy post about Greek warfare. I'm sorry to the OP for posting this but the discussion has shifted.

Before I start we should ask, what was the goal of the Greeks in battle? Was it to score a moral victory? Was it to rout their enemies?

What drove the Greeks to battle?

>And the Lacedaemonians were in no uncertainty about whom they should kill; for then at least heaven granted them an achievement such as they could never even have prayed for. For to have a crowd of enemies delivered into their hands, frightened, panic-stricken, presenting their unprotected sides, no one rallying to his own defence, but all rendering all possible assistance toward their own destruction,—how could one help regarding this as a gift from heaven? On that day, at all events, so many fell within a short time that men accustomed to see heaps of corn, wood, or stones, beheld then heaps of dead bodies. Furthermore, the Boeotians of the garrison in the port were also killed, some upon the walls, and others after they had climbed up on the roofs of the ship-houses. Xen. Hell. 4.4.12

>For, you know, when states defeat their foes in a battle, words fail one to describe the joy they feel in the rout of the enemy, in the pursuit, in the slaughter of the enemy. What transports of triumphant pride! What a halo of glory about them! What comfort to think that they have exalted their city! Everyone is crying: `I had a share in the plan, I killed most'; and it's hard to find where they don't revel in falsehood, claiming to have killed more than all that were really slain. So glorious it seems to them to have won a great victory! Xen. Hiero 2.15-16

There's the old view of the ritualistic nature of Greek warfare and how it came to be to limit the amount of blood spilled. This is absolutely false. The Greeks were very much about killing as much people as possible during war.

Everyone wanted to be the next achilles or odysseus.

>no Persian texts survived for us to find out about how they perceived themselves and their neighbors, especially the Greeks

. From all the written accounts of Greek battles we hear of two practices. The setting of trophies and the truce. While on a quick glance it may seem as some sort of unwritten, ritualistic rule about limiting bloodshed, I will go over their true nature. The construction of trophies only occurred later after battle, it was not immediately. Sometimes it occurred after a long march back.

>These things having taken place, the defeated troops at first fled to the walls of Corinth; but afterwards, since the Corinthians shut them out, they encamped again in their old camp. The Lacedaemonians, on the other hand, returning to the place where they first engaged the enemy, set up a trophy. Such, then, was the issue of this battle. Xen. Hell. 4.2.23

>When this had taken place the Corinthians dragged the bodies to the wall, and after they had given them back under a truce, set up a trophy Xen. Hell. 7.1.19

In some cases days could've passed.

>Urged by the taunts of the elders in their city, the Corinthians made their preparations, and about twelve days afterwards came and set up their trophy as victors. Thuc. 1.105.6

Why, exactly, did it take time to set up a trophy after battle? Thucydides gives us a hint:

>The rest of the army returning with Clearidas from the pursuit stripped the dead and set up a trophy. Thuc. 5.10.12

>The Athenians did not pursue far, being held in check by the numerous and undefeated Syracusan horse, who attacked and drove back any of their heavy infantry whom they saw pursuing in advance of the rest; in spite of which the victors followed so far as was safe in a body, and then wnt bck and set up a trophy. Thuc. 6.70.3

It seems that the setting of the trophy was the last order of battle, right after the rout and the chase. But what was the purpose of this?

Thucydides gives us a very explicit hint:

>After this the Syracusans set up a trophy for the sea-fight and for the heavy infantry whom they had cut off up at the lines, where they took the horses; and the Athenians for the rout of the foot driven by the Tyrrhenians into the marsh, and for their own victory with the rest of the army. Thuc. 7.54.1

This passage allows us to re-think the nature of trophies. Indeed based on this trophies were not to mark victory but rather to celebrate the slaughter that took place. It was a celebration of bloodshed. In this light it makes the quotes here:
Have a proper context. If we take a look at the action of routs in Greek battle we can see that the Greeks chased their foes with an almost genocidal intent and with bloodlust. At some battles it even was a contributing factor as the Greeks were busy chasing their opponents such as Nemea when the Spartans managed to turn around the situation by defeating their returning enemies. Some made a show of this:

And in the morning1 Agesilaus gave orders that Gylis, the polemarch, should draw up the army in line of battle and set up a trophy, that all should deck themselves with garlands in honour of the god,2 and that all the flute-players should play. Xen. Hell. 4.3.21

Because they rose from slave to master and enslaved their masters, they ruined the Lydian capital and burnt a great man

They were the cultural Marxism of their day

>muh roads
Why do colonisers always think these sorts of things justify the genocide of natives, how would you like your grandmother raped and your grandfather killed in exchange for a rail road

The Persians didn't slaughter natives to build roads, and neither did the Romans or the British or just about anyone else. That's reductive as fuck.

Persian texts do survive, they're just mainly late-Persian (Darius or post-Darius) and not comprehensive. The Behistun Monument is probably the most comprehensive.

the world should be a beautiful place.

All surviving depictions of Greek war training involve young men in various states of armament being lead in practices of footwork or formation by significantly older men (presumably veterans). No representations of dueling or practicing the use of their weapons and armor. So if anything, that goes against your theory that a Doru and Aspis would be significantly heavy and restricting on the battlefield.

But please, keep telling me how knights that fell down couldn't get back up due to the weight of their armor. More historical misinfo pls

The trophy, then, was not only meant to establish the superiority of the victor but also meant as a celebration of their exploitation. The trophy, dressed up in arms taken from the dead, was an offering of the fruits of their brutal work.

This also allows us to explain events such as two armies challenging the right to set up a trophy. If neither side felt they had been defeated to the extend to to declare a trophy than trying to challenge the claim of the enemy to establish one might seem natural. The Spartans at Leuctra thought about challenging the Thebans when they were building their trophy (Xen. Hell 6.4.14). If both sides set up a trophy it may be because both sides thought the amount of carnage they caused warranted it. The massacre that took place was how the victors established their superiority.

But what in cases where the chase yielded little slaughter?

This is where the truce comes into play.

First we must establish that every general had the obligation to retrieve the dead. It was a very serious thing.

Onasander explcitly writes that no men would fight relaibly unless their remains were properly taken care of.

>The general should take thought for the burial of the dead, offering as a pretext for delay neither occasion nor time nor place nor fear, whether he happen to be victorious or defeated. Now this is both a holy act of reverence toward the dead and also a necessary example for the living. 2 For if the dead are not buried, each soldier believes that no care will be taken of his own body, should he chance to fall, observing what happens before his own eyes, and thereby judging of the future, feeling that he, likewise, if he should die, would fail of burial, waxes indignant at the contemptuous neglect of burial. Strat. 36.1-2

Nikias, despite the fact that he defeated his enemy, yielded his claim to victory in order to recover two bodies left behind on the beach. Thuc.4.44.5–6 and Plut.Nik.5–6.

The Athenian generals who were put to death despite winning the battle at Arginousa because they failed to recover their dead. Xen.Hell.1.7.4–34

It was always the loser who asked for a truce and the truce was more about humiliation than honor. It was a key factor in the enemy accepting defeat and it was a way for them to acknowledge a monument dedicated to their suffering. We see examples of other Greeks using this to their advantage.

Following their victory at First Mantineia the Spartans moved the dead in front of their formed army (Thuc. 5.74.2). At Koronei they move the dead within their lines (Xen. Ag. 2.15). At Corinth in 369 they were dragged all the way to the cover of the city walls. The bodies were taken out of reach of the enemy to force them to admit defeat and face humiliation. It may be acts like these was a substitute for the lack of slaughter in the aftermath of battle such as in First Mantineia where the chase was short and fruitless. So this truce of recovering the dead was not out of a sense of honor and respect but as a way to get the other side to admit defeat and face humiliation. It was a show of power. It was to show the successful massacre of the enemy. It was not as many have said agonal or restrictive warfare but it shows that Greek warfare was always about the destruction of the enemy. The Greeks engaged in battle only to see the destruction of their enemies with whatever means they had.

The Athenian generals were also killed as a scapegoat to hopefully prevent Artaxerxes from fucking with the mercenaries, no?

Yep and once he told the Spartan king how many days it would take to reach the capital of Persia the King realized he was being mislead and basically told him to fuck off.

user what do you have on the battle formation?