<P> The Greek style of warfare had been honed over the preceding centuries . It revolved around the hoplite, members of the middle - classes (the zeugites) who could afford the armour necessary to fight in this manner . The hoplite was, by the standards of the time, heavily armoured, with a breastplate (originally bronze, but probably by this stage a more flexible leather version), greaves, a full helmet, and a large round shield (the aspis). Hoplites were armed with a long spear (the doru), which was evidently significantly longer than Persian spears, and a sword (the xiphos). Hoplites fought in the phalanx formation; the exact details are not completely clear, but it was a close - knit formation, presenting a uniform front of overlapping shields, and spears, to the enemy . Properly assembled, the phalanx was a formidable offensive and defensive weapon; on occasions when it is recorded to have happened, it took a huge number of light infantry to defeat a relatively small phalanx . The phalanx was vulnerable to being outflanked by cavalry, if caught on the wrong terrain, however . The hoplite's heavy armour and long spears made them excellent troops in hand - to - hand combat and gave them significant protection against ranged attacks by light troops and skirmishers . Even if the shield did not stop a missile, there was a reasonable chance the armour would . </P> <P> The Persian infantry used in the invasion were a heterogeneous group drawn from across the empire . However, according to Herodotus, there was at least a general conformity in the type of armour and style of fighting . The troops were, generally speaking, armed with a bow,' short spear' and sword, carried a wicker shield, and wore at most a leather jerkin . The one exception to this may have been the ethnic Persian troops, who may have worn a corslet of scaled armour . Some of the contingents may have been armed somewhat differently; for instance, the Saka were renowned axemen . The' elite' contingents of the Persian infantry seem to have been the ethnic Persians, Medians, Cissians and the Saka . The foremost of the infantry were the royal guards, the Immortals, although they were still armed in the aforementioned style . Cavalry was provided by the Persians, Bactrians, Medes, Cissians and Saka; most of these probably fought as lightly armed missile cavalry . The style of fighting used by the Persians was probably to stand off from an enemy, using their bows (or equivalent) to wear down the enemy before closing in to deliver the coup de grace with spear and sword . </P> <P> The Persians had encountered hoplites in battle before at Ephesus, where their cavalry had easily routed the (probably exhausted) Greeks . However, at the battle of Marathon, the Athenian hoplites had shown their superiority over the Persian infantry, albeit in the absence of any cavalry . It is therefore slightly surprising that the Persians did not bring any hoplites from the Greek regions, especially Ionia, under their control in Asia . Equally, Herodotus tells us that the Egyptian marines serving in the navy were well armed, and performed well against the Greek marines; yet no Egyptian contingent served in the army . The Persians may not have completely trusted the Ionians and Egyptians, since both had recently revolted against Persian rule . However, if this is the case, then it must be questioned why there were Greek and Egyptian contingents in the navy . The Allies evidently tried to play on the Persian fears about the reliability of the Ionians in Persian service; but, as far as we can tell, both the Ionians and Egyptians performed particularly well for the Persian navy . It may therefore simply be that neither the Ionians nor Egyptians were included in the army because they were serving in the fleet--none of the coastal regions of the Persian empire appear to have sent contingents with the army . </P> <P> In the two major land battles of the invasion, the Allies clearly adjusted their tactics to nullify the Persian advantage in numbers and cavalry, by occupying the pass at Thermopylae, and by staying on high ground at Plataea . At Thermopylae, until the path outflanking the Allied position was revealed, the Persians signally failed to adjust their tactics to the situation, although the position was well chosen to limit the Persian options . At Plataea, the harassing of the Allied positions by cavalry was a successful tactic, forcing the precipitous (and nearly disastrous) retreat; however, Mardonius then brought about a general melee between the infantry, which resulted in the Persian defeat . The events at Mycale reveal a similar story; Persian infantry committing themselves to a melee with hoplites, with disastrous results . It has been suggested that there is little evidence of complex tactics in the Greco - Persian wars . However, as simple as the Greek tactics were, they played to their strengths; the Persians however, may have seriously underestimated the strength of the hoplite, and their failure to adapt to facing the Allied infantry contributed to the eventual Persian defeat . </P>

Where did the second persian war take place