Ancient Wars

There were hundreds of Greek cities within the Persian Empire, and their mother cities in peninsular Greece helped them rise against their Persian overlords. The Persians decided to take over peninsular Greece and absorb it within the empire to stop this disruption to peace.

There were several Persian leaders called Darius - they were kings of Persia.

The Persians .

the only war between Athens & Sparta is the pelioponnesion war where Sparta fought Athens because they thought they were too powerful. in the end Athens surrendered and Sparta then became the most powerful.

none.

First, by leaving indigenous local governments in place, which raised their own revenues by traditional means.

Secondly, by imposing a tax collected locally under the supervision of Persian provincial governors.

This tax was apparently very fair as, when the Greek city-states of the eastern Mediterranean were liberated from Persian rule, and had to raise money to pay for forces to guarantee their continuing freedom, it generally set the new taxes at the Persian rate.

20th Century BCE.

They were part of a joint effort by the southern Greek city-states to resist a Persian takeover of their cities.

The revolt in Egypt 487 BCE, which delayed the planned invasion of mainland Greece until 480 BCE.

Land purchase.

A city and its supporting surrounding agricultural land formed independent mini-states.

550-330 BCE

The growth of Athenian power was based on war.

They are not at all unexpeced. They were carefully planned by the Greek commanders. I suggest you took at some of the more popular questions in Ancient Wars, where the Greek strategies are explained. Start looking up the answer to the question:

How did the Persians lose the Persian wars

This enabled the defeat of the anti-Persian Athenian Empire, and enabled Persia to reestablish control of its western province of Asia Minor which was disrupted by the independence of the Greek cities there under the auspices of the Athenians to whom they paid protection money.

The two words are not mutually opposite. The Roman republic had an empire for a couple of hundred years. The empire continued on under a single ruler for the next few hundred years.

Empire is a modern word. The words empire and emperor did not exist at the time.

Athens, then Sparta lost preeminence, Persia asserted authority with the Kings's Peace, Macedonia came to preeminence then took over the Persian Empire, and Greece was taken over by Rome.

In other words, the Greek world was devastated by the Peloponnesian War, and other cohesive states were able to dominate the weakened and divided Greek city-states.

It was stripped of its empire and became a second-rate power. It continued to engage in wars, shifting sides according to where its benefit lay. It was eventually taken under control by an expanding Macedonia.

Charlemagne did not give much choice to those he conquered in northern and eastern Germany and in Slavic areas. Part of his mission was to Christianise them. He sent missionaries to convert them. He put his relatives and other Frankish aristocrats (counts and margraves) in charge of the conquered areas and created the missi dominici, who were imperial officials who travelled around the empire to announce Charlemagne's laws, acted as judges in court cases and sometimes raised armies.

The small farmers were the backbone of the Roman army. This was not a problem in local wars, where the farmers turned out and were in fact defending their own land. However, as Rome extended its reach, and in particular the period of the Punic Wars against Carthage, they were away for extended periods. Their own farms (about a hectare) were protected, but the small plots meant that they were dependent on the common land to graze their ploughing ox and gather other produce to supplement the grain they grew on their small plots.

During their absence on service the rich landowners progressively took possession of sections of the common land, creating the latifundia, which put the farmers in a desperate situation, many having to sell out (to the latifundia owners) when they returned from extended campaigns unless their share of any loot covered them. So the latifundia grew and the small farmers shrank. By the time of the Germanic invasions in the late 2nd Century BCE, there were insufficient farmers to man the army, and it became necessary to recruit from the un-propertied class to make up the numbers required, and as these had no land to return to after a campaign, they had to rely on their patron (their generals) to get them land grants in conquered territories - Spain, North Africa and Macedonia - to give them a living. So the small farmers were largely dispossessed, joined the un-propertied class, and relied on their generals (latifundia owners) to get them resettled - and this gave the generals a large clientele dependent on them, and thus the power which led to them having power and rivalry, which fed the civil wars.

See the timeline Fifth Century BCE in the separate panel Sources and related links below.

The Vandals led by Gaiseric .

The structure evolved over time. By the Peloponnesian War the basic Spartan unit was the enmotia of 36 men in three sections. Two of these made up a pentekostys, and two of them made a lochos. Four of these made a mora (battalion) = 576. Battalions were grouped according to the task. The Spartans were not known for their seige engines - they were field fighters. In fact in their mid-5th Century BCE seige of Messenia, they had to call in the Athenians to help them. However they are recorded as using catapaults, scaling ladders and battering rams in the seige of Plataia in 429 BCE early in the Peloponnesian war.

The Greek expedition was a looting one. A rich trading city like Troy was their primary target, but without a siege train they could not breach the walls, and they did not even have the resources to lay siege and starve it out.

So after their initial assault failed, they went off looting the eastern Mediterranean coast for the next nine years.

After they had taken the best pickings, they returned in the 10th year for the richest prize - another attempt on Troy. Again they failed to capture the city, and the legend says that they got a party inside the city wall by the wooden horse ruse, opened the gates and captured the city.

Darius had a much larger army and so Alexander couldn't afford to fight on the defensive, he had to go for the kill and hit the enemy.

The Macedonian Phalanx was a meat grinder, it only worked so long as it had momentum, so it hard to march forward, the Sarissa's whittling down the enemy front. The staggered line allowed Alexander to provide only a short attack for Darius, helping to preventing a flank attack. It, however left the right flank vulnerable which is why Alexander had to move out to the right to draw out Bessus, pin him and snap back to attack Darius which would cause either the death of Darius or Darius to leave the field, leaving the Persian's incapacitated. A cavalry charge is a frightening thing and not many people can stand against it, in Alexander's basic 'Hammer and Anvil' the Phalanx would push the enemy back and Alexander would push them back onto the phalanx, trapping the enemy infantry. Evident at 3 of this 4 set piece battles. It was a brilliant plan but one that had to be executed to perfection and for that, the great quality of the troops and able captains deserve credit.