Hail

There is a topic that has troubled me for some time now and I wish to share it with you people. I have already wrote an article about it, it's about a man who appeared in the Battle of Marathon (Ancient Greece, 480 BCE), he fought and slayed countless of Persians, but then vanished. The man's name was Ehetlaios, and I would be grateful if you could e-mail me at Odin_Guide_My_Sword@yahoo.com if you know something more about it.

I am aware that more things are known about the field of Marathon nowadays, that you can still hear the warsongs the Greeks sang after the battle and many more, and it'd be great if someone told me more about that topic as well.

Thanks, posting the article below.

"In the year 490 BCE the Persian king Darius invaded Hellas. He started
by passing his army to Europe, through the Hellispont (where the european part of modern
Turkey now is) and conquering Thracia. Moving to the west, the kingdom of Macedon,
facing annihilation, surrendered and allied with the Persians. Darius then moved to the
south, knowing that if he'd conquer Athens, then all of the other Hellenic kingdoms
(except of Sparta who wouldn't go down without a fight) would surrender as well...

The battle took place in Marathon, some khms north of Athens. The Persian army was about
50.000 men strong (infantry and cavalry) , unlike the Hellenic army that was about 10.000
men strong (1.000 men from each of the 10 city-states that took place in the battle). The Greeks
managed to win the battle under the excellent leadership of general Miltiadis. (It must
be noted that the battle in Marathon was the first ever battle in history to include
tactics and maneuvers. In the past all armies fought with an all-out charge to the enemy.)

A background story, not widely known, speaks of a man who appeared without notice in the
battle. He was dressed and looked like a peasant, holding a weapon that no other Greek
had ever seen used. It was an ehetlon, a plough, which was commonly used by farmers to sow
the earth. No one knew who was the man, or if he even was Greek, yet he fought alongside with the
Greek army and slayed countless of Persians. It is said that he vanished after the battle
was over. The Athenians searched for him, to award him the honour as the most valorous
man who fought, many people did see him, yet no one knew who he was, nor they found him.

The Athenians asked the Oracle of Delphi about the man. The only answer Pythia, the Oracle, gave was:
"Thankful you must be, to the hero Ehetlaios."
No one saw Ehetlaios again.

Trying to find who he was, we find ourselves in difficult positions. All kind of researchers have developed
their own opinions about Ehetlaios. I will type 3 opinions and possibly the more accurate ones.

1) The Conspirator's Theory: Many conspirators who research Ancient Greece, say that the Greeks had supreme
technology, that's why they managed to do such great things and had the best armies back in that era.
The conspirators propose that the ancient Greeks had rocket launchers mounted on their ships, carried guns and
many more things. They propose that Ehetlaios was a man that every Greek soldier in the battle knew who he
was, but everyone took an oath not to talk about it. Ehetlaios was a mortal man, given the task to use one
of those "superguns" the Greeks owner, because the Greek armies were afraid of losing the battle.

2) The Metaphysical Theory: Ehetlaios wasn't the only man who appeared in the battle. Pausanias (Greek writer)
wrote that a man named Epizilos (who was son of a man named Koufagoras) claimed he had seen the ghost of
another man in Marathon and after that he was blinded for the rest of his life.
"I saw a gigantic hoplite standing across me. His beard was so wide, it could hide his shield. He then
ran towards me, but he didn't attack me, he ran beside me and attacked the man who was next to me."
How could Epizilos be blinded? Did that "ghost" ran beside him, or straight through him? And if that "ghost"
was a Greek hoplite, why would he attack an ally?
In Metaphysical circles it's quite known that everything we do is recorded in the wind, the trees, the stones
like prints. In later times people can hear voices or see faces that others can not. The Metaphysical Theory
proposed that a battle took place in the same field as Marathon, but thousands of years before the actual battle,
a battle that probably scarred the world back then. This can prove that Ehetlaios and the unknown hoplite
were ghosts and that the Greek soldiers, led to their limits by the heat of battle, went berzerk, thus
started hallucinating, and living in the same palm as the universe, or were mentally taken to another dimension
where they saw Ehetlaios and the unknown hoplite fighting.

3) The Ancient Religious Theory: Pausanias also wrote that several days before the battle, the Athenians sent
an emissary to Sparta, to warn the Spartans of the Persian army and to ask them to send their troops to
Marathon where the fight would take place. The man's name was Pheidippides.
The Spartans told him that they never sent army to a fight before full moon, thus they wouldn't send any troops.
Pheidippides was returning home to Athens, from Sparta, in order to prepare for the battle himself, when, while
passing through the Arcadian mountain of Partheno Oros (Virgin Mount) heading for Corinth,
he met the Arcadian God, Pan. Pan told Pheidippides that he favoured the Greeks and that he would go to
Marathon, to fight along with the Greek army. Thus said Pheidippides.
When the Athenians heard the news they made sacrifices to Pan, and rightfully thought that Ehetlaios
was Pan.

It should be noted that near the plain of Marathon is a mountain dedicated to Pan. On the mountain was a cave.
The entrance wasn't big, but deep inside you could find rooms and also the Pan's sheep. (Rocks in the shape of sheep.)

Also, a sidenote: The Spartans didn't fight in the battle of Marathon, but both Athenians and Spartans have their
own things to say about Sparta's absence. The Athenians said that the Spartans didn't really care
if Athens was destroyed (Since they were enemies...), didn't want to take part in the battle without leading it,
and didn't care if Greece fell to the Persians. However, the Spartans say that Pheidippides wasn't fast enough, or
wasn't sent fast enough leaving the Spartans with only 3 days to prepare, march and reach Marathon. The Spartans broke
the oath of not sending an army to war before the full moon, prepared and marched and reached Marathon in the 3 days,
only because the Spartans were Greeks as well, and they wouldn't want to see their land enslaved.
The Spartans claimed they reached the battlefield, but late, when the Athenians were chasing the Persians to their ships.
They also claimed not being responsible for being late, but that the fight started earlier than Pheidippides told them it
would.

The sure thing is that Ehetlaios was never seen again, and his memory was steadily forgotten.
The famous painter Panainos, had drawn Ehetlaios fighting with his ehetlon on the Poikili Stoa
painting of his. I have seen the picture and Ehetlaios looks like a normal man, only holding a weapon that
is used like a spear."

This is fascinating. A brand new myth I'd enver heard of!
WOW!!!! I'll be hunting down clues ASAP!

that was a good read, but that conspirisist theories kinda stupid... rocket launchers on ships if they had that they'd be classed as gods and would conquer the world easily. and no-one had that technology at the period of time.

I thought Callimachus led the greeks it was Militidas that sent Pheidippides to athens with the news of victory?, but if the Greeks had such woderous technologies, why would the battle of Marathon be the first battle to include modern military tactics[which imo wasnt the first battle to do so], becuase of the use of such weapons would require tactics. but it does sound like a bit of myth.

I know about the conspirators theory, it sounds really weird and I prefer researching history as a historian, with real historical facts.

Anyway, the conspirator's theory was suggested by the webmaster of a certain website. Specifically, when I asked him, he wrote: "Ehetlaios was a Hellenic warrior who fought valiantly in the battle of Marathon. It is said he killed countless of his enemies using a plough. This coded description MAY have something to do with the use of supreme technology."

And about the battle... If you can find a battle before Marathon, that used military tactics, tell me. I suggest you look up for the actual battle of Marathon and you'll see that it's probably the first one with military tactics. And it was Miltiades leading the Hellenic army in that battle. Pheidippides was also sent after the battle in Athens and shouted "Nenikikamen" before dying in the entrance of the city. In his honour, the Marathon race became an Olympic sport.

aye the fantastic technology is a bit off, but hell archimedies had steam powered guns in 50ad lol, so why not. But define the use of military "tactics" u sayin this from a soley greek philosophy of fighting or on a world scale at the time?

Tactics and strategy are part of warfare.

Did you mean 'modern tactics'?

Technology improves, and weapons get better, but some things remian the same.

--- the need for cohesive command, control, and comunication (3C)
--- the need for accurate intelligance before the battle
--- logictics in deployment and resupply of forces

Certain classes of weapons have improved, but their basic use remains the same.

Artillery, whether it's ballista, or howitzers, is still used for bombardment of fortifications, or troop concentrations.

Cavalry, whether it's mounted soldiers on horseback, or Bradley armored fighting vehicles (AFV), they are still used to scout ahead of the main force, to outflank an enemy, and to support the main force.

I doubt very seriously that the Greeks,or any culture at the time, had rockets, explosives, or any modern weaponry. I have pondered the validity of the 'steam engine' theory. The jury's out on that one.

no it was mostly in terms of formation fighting, so basicaly yeah like modern warfare, introduced by the Romans. But still the greeks never fielded much cavalry due to terrain difficulties and seemd to have an iversion to bows and arrows. But they still employed tactics before Marathon, poisining water supplys, chemical warfare etc. And many other far more ancient peoples employed varities of military tactics.

fantastic story, never heard of it before....thanks for posting it.

We can prepare from saltpeter and other materials an artificial fire which will burn at whatever distance we please. The same may be made from red petroleum and other things, and from amber, and naphtha, and white petroleum, and from similar materials. Pliny reports in his second book that he defended a certain city against the Roman Army, and, by throwing down many incendaries, burned the soldiers in spite of their armor. Greek Fire [an incendiary material developed by the Byzantines in the 7th century, who fired it from copper tubes at enemy ships] and many other combustibles are closely akin to these mixtures.

Further: perpetual lamps may be made, and baths which retain their heat forever, for we know of substances which are not burned by fire but which are purified.

Beyond these are still other stupendous things in Nature. For the sound of thunder may be artificially produced in the air with greater resulting horror than if it had been produced by natural causes. A moderate amount of proper material, of the size of the thumb, will make a horrible sound and violent coruscation [a sudden flash of light]. Such material may be used in a variety of ways, as, for instance, in a case similar to that in which a whole army and city were destroyed by means of the strategy of Gideon who, with broken jugs and torches, and with fire leaping forth with ineffable thunder, routed the army of the Midianites with three hundred men. These are miracles, if accepted according to their account in size and in substance.

Nature...

why would Pliny the elder or younger be defending a city against the romans?

if you read the book "atlas of military history edited by richard brooks" the first battle that employed tactics was the battle of kadesh in 1282BCE the egyptians faced off with the hittites. this is only the oldest account in which the order of battle was recorded, thus making it the oldest reliable account of tactics.

In that specific battle if I remember correctly, the Greeks used the famous tactic in which they polished their shields and fought opposite the suns glare. That incapacitated the Persian infantry and calvalry to the extend that they lost the battle despite superior numbers.

General Meltiadis also fought in a way to outflank the enemy and finally finish off the bulk of enemy forces by attacking from all sides (giving also the illusion there were more of them).

The theory about superior technology is rather far fetched, especially when talking about rocket launchers. After all the descriptions themselves depict warriors fighting typical Greek style and so did Ehetlaios, save perhaps his warrior gear which he seemed to lack. In many historical battles similar individuals or even whole groups are witnessed to fight alongside defenders. Whether those are genuine articles or fictional images that result from heat of battle, is not be known unless something is unearthed to confirm their existence and partcipation.

That is correct. He reinforced the right and left sides of the Hellenic army, so that he could crush to same sides of the Persians and when the Persian right and left sides started routing, they Greek sides turned back and encircled the Persian main army. (sorry if that made no sense)