Talk:Battle of Marathon

message: I've added two GIFs depicting the battle of Marathon ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 16:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GIFs

message: ----
The text of this article states, "Darius learned through Hippias that the Alcemaeonidae, a powerful Athenian family, were opposed to Miltiades and 
ready to help reinstate Hippias."
This sounds doubtful.  The Alcmaeonidae included some of the leading supporters for the democracy, didn't they?  In that case they would hardly have wanted to reinstate Hippias, and Miltiades was never really in charge of anything. <- Miltiades was given command of the battle; I'd say that is fairly substantial.
The text also states, "Hippias, tyrant of Athens, had been expelled in 510 BC by his people, with the assistance of Cleomenes, King of Sparta. He fled to the court of Darius to seek assistance."  The link for Hippias goes to Hippias of Elis, a Sophist. The article there gives no hint that Hippias of Elis was also the 
"tyrant of Athens."  I presume that these were two different people, so the
link is incorrect.  If they were in fact the same person, then the article about Hippias of Elis should be updated.
:Well, the Hippias problem is fixed...as for the rest, Hippias may have been lying to Darius to convince him to invade, but I don't really know that particular aspect of the story. Adam Bishop 04:17, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Link for that. It talks about it being a month earlier than the current Sept. 12 thinking, but I think that would be a lunar month, rather than a 30 or 31 day month. So it would probably be more like Aug. 13 to 15 or so.-- John Owens (talk) 19:10, 2004 Jul 19 (UTC)
That info about the moon and the Spartan calendar is interesting, but I wouldn't want to change the date based on the Phidippides story, which may never have happened anyway...I think there should be some corroborating sources as well, this sounds like the sort of thing that might have been published in a journal somewhere. Adam Bishop 03:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: "According to a new interpretation of the legend, Philippides was retreating from the battlefield of Marathon after the Persians gained the upper hand. According to the Dipakavani (an ancient commentary recently found in the Deccan Plateau of India), Philippides was being chased by a battalion on horseback, and could cover the said distance only because of his tremendous skill as a runner, presumably honed while on job as a professional messenger. The original legend concerning the message to be delivered seems to be a corruption entertained by Herodotus as a result of the known resume of Philippides, who was famed as a Olympian runner."
Through Google, at least, there is no evidence for this; Dipakavani does not show up at all. If this has been published anywhere, then we can put it back. Adam Bishop 16:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Well presumably the 26 000 comes from adding up the numbers in Herodotus. If so, that's a surprisingly accurate guess, if your estimate is 20 000 - usually Herodotus would have a wildly exaggerated number. Adam Bishop 07:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: I find the whole concept of one sided casualty rates such as the Battle of Marathon given as fact a bit too much to beleive.
For two armies adding to 30,000 men coming into contact assuming that at least 10% of the men actually engaged each other in hand to hand combat to state such a a low death rate for the Greeks seems more fiction than fact. 3000 men attacking each other at close range would generate more casualty than 300 men on either side.
I also know that the Battle of Marathon derives majority of its facts from the winning side and is part of our folk lore.
As a military history fan I tend to try and recreate battles in my mind to see if they pass the basic math and real life situations.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.97.37.197 (talk • contribs) 22:30, January 4, 2006.
I agree, the fact that only 192 died for greece compared to 6400 persians seems very hard to swallow this would mean every one Greek killed more than thirty persians. I have also heard of an equation or formula used by Herodotus marathon and other greek victories that determined both strength and casualties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arvand (talk • contribs) 02:52, January 15, 2006.
I've read that at Salamis the Persians had the habit of multiplyimg the greek casualties by factor 4 for their records.
However the large ratio at Marathon may not be as unbelievable as it seem. The Greek Hoplites were far better armoured and had longer weapons. Especially the persian archers were probably ill-suited for close-combat with a Hoplite, so once the Greek managed to get to them after breaking through the Persian Infantry, it was probably a one-sided battle. Nevfennas 10:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty Rates 

message: Would anyone have any objections to replacing the landscape scene currently showing in the infobox with :Image:Hoplite72.JPG, which shows a hoplite about to stab a Persian?  It seems slightly more fitting to me.  RobthTalk 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh.  Scratch that.  The quality's too low.  I'd still like to see it replaced with something more battle-related, though.  RobthTalk 03:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No I personally prefer the plains of marathon today, its mute testimony to the events that occurred 2500 years ago, I prefer no so bias images.
I have a picture of the plain showing the athenian burial mound with mts in background I took last fall.  Any objection to post this picture? GeoTraveller 21:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swap pictures? 

message: Before anyone gives histerical numbers like 210 000 to 600,000 as ancient sources or modern estimates of 50,000-60,000 for persian numbers, can that individual provide some links to back up such funny stats. Also, this site is not intended to show patriotism, in this case Greek patriotism. Thank you.
Herodotus does not give numbers for the Persians as erroneously stated in the warbox. He only says it was "a large and well-equipped land-army" (book VI p. 94), see for example the english Herodotus translation at http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/herodotus/book06.htm. As for the 50,000-60,000 number see http://www.army.gr/n/g/archive/history/marathon/index.shtml among others Ikokki 08:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some believe that the reason the battle occured after the long stalemate was that the Persians had decided to retreat to their ships. This seems believable, as they had to assume that Spartas troops would be arriving soon, so continuing the stalemate would not bring them any benefit (of course this could also explain a persian decision to finally attack the Greeks). If the persians were in the process of embarking and the Greek decided to exploit that with an attack they would have waited until a good part of the persians were already on the ships. This would have eliminated any threat from the persian cavalry, as embarking the horses was a more complex process than embarking the troops and would have been done first. By this way the persians could well have a 6 to 1 superiority in the overall numbers, but far less troops actually able to fight on the battlefield. Add to that the better equipment of the Hoplites and the confusions arising from the unusal fast charge of the Greek and you can easily imagine that the persian troops still on land lost their order during the onslaught. And once the persians were in a rout or pushed into the sea the casualty rate 32:1 starts getting quite believable, cause most of these were not killed fighting the Greek, but killed/drowned trying to run from them.Nevfennas 21:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: half of the force was wiped out by sea what exactly are you referring to? I can't find these losses in the article unless you mean the ships lost in the storm at Cape Athos. But that was an operation 2 years earlier. The persian army at marathon had not yet suffered major losses, save a possible detached force laying siege to Eretria. Nevfennas 19:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy of enemy numbers

message: It is because of the non-significance of such an event in our days. It was way important when associated with the Battle of Marathon and that is why the EB 1911 had a topic for that but we do not really need any topic for that since it is part of the past and so few tangible sources can be used in improving the two lines of text present on the article Agroteras Thusia. Lincher 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You will have no contest from me. I think we need to add section where they write about this sacrifice, the appearance of Theseus on the side of the Athenians during the battle (mentioned by Plutarch) and perhaps the claimed supernatural event of 1930Ikokki 18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also vote for the merger. DocWatson42 17:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Agroteras Thusia]] 

message: Likely quite worthy of GA-status. The infobox picture is a nice touch. And the maps taken from USMA are gorgeous and perfect. I love articles with lots of pictures and maps. This article is long and detailed and thorough, and worthy of the subject it tackles. Just one criticism - expand the introduction to indicate the battle's fame and importance in the eyes of modern military historians, and mention the connection to the origin of the concept of the Marathon (race). LordAmeth 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MilHist Assessment

message: Who are the Plateans? Who was Kallimachus? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information needed in article 

message: I've dropped by to do a GA review of your article. I'm impressed by the readability, the fine and informative graphics and info boxes and the good balance between vocabulary and readability. All it needs for promotion to GA status is a longer lead, written to the WP:LEAD standard, inline references for the historical sources and background sections. I need to see at least one reference per section and prefer at least one per paragraph. The objective is so that a curious reader can jump to your sources to read more, if they're interested.
I'll put the article on hold to let you all take a look at these issues. --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded the lead section, as for inline references I'll add at a later time. At this point I'm dedicating more energy at the main article Greco-Persian Wars Ikokki 00:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! The lead now meets the standard. Does anyone else have time to do the inline refs? --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I passed the article anyway. I'm making the assumption you all intend to keep at it. I'd suggest next a peer review on the road to FA. --CTSWyneken(talk) 22:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: What do people think about a section discussing the disposition of forces prior to the battle? The common view, that the Persians were fighting with their backs to the sea, is known to be controversial and seems odd in several respects. If the Persians were responsible for beginning the battle, why would they choose such an unfavorable position? It also leaves their left flank completely exposed to the Greeks approaching from the west. Herodotus also never mentions that they were boarding the ships at the time, which would possibly explain it. The Osprey publication on the battle (Marathon 490 BC) offers what I think is a better explanation, namely that a perpendicular orientation with the Persians' left flank anchored on the shoreline makes much better sense from a tactical perspective. I'm not talking a major revision of the article, just a mention that there are other possibilities.
:The article mentions the boarding the ships hypothesis without adopting it. A new disposition section would be good if it is properly cited, though generally a section takes more than one paragraph. The biggest stumbling block for the advancement of the article is copyediting, not lack of content. By the way it is best to sign one's commnents using the four wikis ~~~~ Ikokki 11:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disposition of Forces 

message: I think the article could be much better written. I have made a start with the first two sections. Rintrah 14:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your assistance. I am not a native english speaker, thus my contributions tend to be a little messy. Ikokki 18:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: This needs expansion: In 510 BC, the Athenian people, with the assistance of Cleomenes I, King of Sparta, expelled Hippias, who had ruled as tyrant of Athens.[5] Fleeing to the court of Darius, he sought the emperor's aid.[6]. On its own it seems isolated. It does not connect strongly enough with the rest of the section. Rintrah 11:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph

message: Currently the third paragraph of Size of Opposing Forces is very messy. I suggest it be rewritten to be made readable. I can see this article is slowly getting better. Rintrah 08:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. I am very tied up, else I would expand what was necessary Ikokki 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of Opposing Forces 

message: From the last section: 
:Evidence that the runner did exist and did run is given by the following popular legend. . .
Did the authors cited make the rather astounding claim that a folktale first recorded in the 19th century is evidence of events that took place more than 2000 years earlier? If they do, do they give any kind of supporting argument for the far-fetched claim that there's an unbroken oral chain of transmission stretching back to the time of the battle? One that gives a version of the story so similar to the written accounts? (Imagine a 2500-year-long game of Chinese whispers.) Even if they do, do we need to repeat their claims without question?
It's certainly interesting and relevant that there were fairly modern Greek folktales about the battle, and I'm glad they were included here, but I really don't think they should be presented as evidence for any of the stories; it should suffice to say they existed. —Charles P._(Mirv) 05:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kakrides compiled a book about how the ancient Greeks were seen in later legend. In his book he includes a longer version of this passage. In the E Istorika dedicated to the battle of Marathon, the last article (about 4 pages long with pictures) is about the Marathon run where, after a rather long discussion with references over whether there was a runner and which route he took this legend is given as further evidence (it is called weak evidence though) that the runner existed. Treat it like the other tales mentioned by Kakrides, like that from Aetoloacarnania that the ancient Greeks were 6 meter tall. Ikokki 15:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  evidence? 

message: The picture which has a caption of lancers is only partially correct. Those are Persian Immortals. AllStarZ 02:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A picture

message: Having read Herodotus inside and outside on several occasions I don't remember him (with his authority on the matter) claimng that Datis, one of the Persian maritime and Land Forces Command being killed in action (KIA) at Marathon. Ikkoki correct me if I am wrong but Herodotus never claims this - correct? To the best of my knowledge this is probably Cteisas' claim. I understand that there is an appropriate question mark in the warbox, but isn't there a better way to illustrate the conflicting views of Herodotus and Cteisas, perhaps by adding their names in brackets somewhere or in the article? Sorry is I am being a little nit-picky. --Arsenous Commodore 04:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Herodotus does not claim so, in fact he has him returning a statue to Delos. It is Ctesias who claims so and claims that the failure of the Athenians to return his body caused Xerxes' invasion (something unlikely, the Greeks returned the bodies of the dead when asked) Ikokki 09:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Datis Killed? 

message: I do not have something more to add to this article. The only real task left if the rewrite is complete is to renominate for A-class status Ikokki 12:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-class review 

message: the place Marathon is in greek Μαραθών genitivus Μαραθῶνος.It is derived from the once abudance there of the plant
μάραθον genitivus μαράθου plural μάραθα genitivus μαράθων.
Your correction was totally wrong.
Thanatos666 21:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recorrection of name 

message: I'm using standard latin transliteration for speed.
mache belongs to first or alpha or (-as) -es  (for male)  -a -e (for female) declension (same-analogous to latin -a).Marathon to third or labial and velar declension(same-analogous to latin 3-5 declensions meaning if you're accustomed to other classification , declensions other than -a and -us-um).
I don't understand why you said that the article should match the noun.It's " He mache tou Marathonos".article-noun matching (as almost everything else) is pretty much the same in greek as in latin.(latin ofcourse doesn't have an article.by this I mean noun matching in general)
for more greek see wiki Ancient Greek Grammar or the rest of the internet for broader treatises.
 Singular
 N he   mache   ,ho   Marathon
 G tes  maches  ,tou  Marathonos
 D tei  machei  ,toi  Marathoni
 A ten  machen  ,ton  Marathona
 V o    mache   ,o    Marathon
 Plural    (plural of Marathon not widely used) 
 N hai  machai  ,hoi  Marathones
 G ton  machon  ,ton  Marathonon
 D tais machais ,tois Marathosi
 A tas  machas  ,tous Marathonas
 V o    machai  ,o    Marathones
 Dual       (dual of Marathon not widely used) 
 N/A to   macha    ,to   Marathone
 G/D toin machain  ,toin Marathonoin
at your service
Thanatos|talk 01:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reply 

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed.
Add inline citations for:
#"However, he was born a few years after the battle, and it is believed he wrote his book after the Peace of Callias (449 BC/448 BC)."
#"In order for the Athenians to revolt, two things would need to happen: the populace would need to be encouraged to revolt, and the Athenian army would have to leave Athens so that they could not crush it."
#"Some of the poor who remembered Peisistratus well, since he had given them jobs, probably hoped for a victory of the Persians and a change in regime to give them more power, which is one of the reasons Hippias ordered the landing in Marathon where the vast majority of local inhabitants were from these social classes."
#Some claim that Artaphernes took part of the Persian army and laid siege to Eretria, while the remainder of the army crossed with Datis and landed in the Bay of Marathon.
#Others claim that the events happened consecutively: at first Eretria was besieged and fell, and later the whole army landed at Schinias beach.
#"It states: "The cavalry left. When Datis surrendered and was ready for retreat, the Ionians climbed the trees and gave the Athenians the signal that the cavalry had left. And when Miltiades realized that, he attacked and thus won. From there comes the above-mentioned quote, which is used when someone breaks ranks before battle"."
#"Proponents of the former opinion note the following arguments: the ancient Greeks—as indicated by the surviving statues—were in very good physical condition (the hoplite run had recently become an Olympic sport), and if they had run the entire distance, it would have been covered in about 5 minutes, whereas if they had marched, it would have probably taken 10, enough time for the Persians to react, which they did not."
#"Some modern historians doubt they traveled so fast."
#"The tomb was excavated in the 1880s by German archeologists."
#"See D.W. Olson et al., "The Moon and the Marathon", Sky & Telescope Sep. 2004, pp. 34—41.1" Convert this to an inline citation.
#"This phenomenon appears to have also been reported in the modern era: according to newspapers of the time in the year 1930, visitors to the region claimed to have heard a sound of metal clashes and screams coming from the battlefield."
If sources can't be found, either consider removing them or inserting them into hidden comments until one is found. If these are not addressed within seven days, the article may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. I will leave notices on the talk pages of the main contributors to this article along with related WikiProjects to ensure that the above issues are addressed by the appropriate people. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. Regards, --Nehrams2020 20:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have delisted the article as a GA at this time since the above issues were not addressed. If they are fixed at some point, please renominate again at WP:GAN, it should have little problems passing. The article was a very interesting read, and I hope it is returned to GA status. If you disagree with this review you can seek an alternate assessment at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. I have modified the page history to reflect this review. --Nehrams2020 17:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a while since the above review, but I have finally got round to editing this article to (hopefully) return it to GA status. I have substantially reworked the article to increase its logical progression, to improve the quality of the English, and to remove irrelevant information. I have also removed the offending statements listed above. I think this article now exceeds the requirements for GA, and I hope it should be possible to work this article up to featured article status relatively easily. If anyone would care to give some feedback on what might be required for FA status, please do! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

message: The page says (at least, in my locale) "The distance eventually became fixed at 26 miles (42 km) and 325 yards (297 m)". Clearly it is inappropriate to make two separate unit conversions - 26 miles 325 yards is certainly not equal to 42km 297m as a reader might infer from this text.
It should read something like "The distance eventually became fixed at 26 miles and 325 yards (42 km)" but I don't know enough syntax for the Convert macro to make this edit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.137.246 (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of units in marathon distance 

message: Does anyone know if the 2.500 year memory of the battle is going to be celebrated this summer in Greece, or among classical scholars? Not too often you have an occasion to fete an event with a fixed date this far back into history. Strausszek (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You may see the Greek 2 Euros' commemorative coin in the Greek article. ---Pagaeos (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jubilee? 

message: Miltiades ordered the two tribes that were forming the center of the Greek formation, the Leontis tribe led by Themistocles and the Antiochis tribe led by Aristides, to be arranged in the depth of 4 ranks while the rest of the tribes at their flanks were in ranks of 8.[73][74]. 
I read those sources, and neither Herodotus not Plutarch state that it was Miltiades who ordered this.
I may be interpreting the sources incorrectly, but I am pretty sure that this part is incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.133.229 (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miltiades? 

message: Its included in the introduction and then is included in the body of the article verbatim. The introduction sentence needs to be summarized and rephrased. I will summarize and rephrase the introduction if no one else does. You have 24hours. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "the Battle of Marathon, even as an event in British history, is more important than the Battle of Hastings"

message: "Many changes that were subsequent with ancient historians, despite following in his footsteps, criticised Herodotus, starting with Thucydides."
The grammar of this sentence is obscure, it seems we have different subjects in the first ("Many changes that were subsequent with") and second half ("ancient historians ... starting with Thucydides.".
Can someone explain and maybe rephrase?
46.115.23.2 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources: "Many changes that were subsequent with ancient historians .. 

message: The historiography of this article is really outdated! In 2010 was published Peter Krentz's The Battle of Marathon and in 2014 Dennis Fink's The Battle of Marathon in Scholarship, a synthesis of all the studies about the battle written from 1850 to 2014. I used this books to rewrite the article on it.wiki and I want to suggest you to traduce it, because the present version of this article is obsolete and a lot of aspects of the battle aren't treated at all (e.g. the reconstruction of the battlefield)! --Epìdosis (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really outdated 

message: If the intention was to match the length of the Persian line and not get outflanked, why did Miltiades only stretch the center and leave the sides 8 men deep? Why not thin out the entire line by a smaller margin?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.12.127.244 (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why only thin the center? 

message: How many times are you folks going to mention Hippias was a tyrant. You only have to do it once - not three times. I do not find the article's usage of semi-colons enjoyable. I think in this article, semi-colons are misused. This is a good article - but you folks have some redundant phrases (half-baked sentences) - Don't respond. I am only only reading the article and will never be back again. Good luck! 66.234.58.131 (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyrant Hippias and semi-colons 

message: It says that 'greek victory' is "informative enough" however this is far from correct - we should always be as detailed as possible. The way I see it, it was definitely decisive since this battle was the turning point. So why not decisive? Green547 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections? Green547 (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisive 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Marathon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100813093010/http://www.e-marathon.gr:80/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=54 to http://e-marathon.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=54
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Marathon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.e-marathon.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=54
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923173917/http://www.army.gr/files/File/History_En/Events/The%20Battle%20Of%20Marathon.pdf to http://www.army.gr/files/File/History_En/Events/The%20Battle%20Of%20Marathon.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Currently the section describing the battle, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon#Battle, has one map (Persians in red, Greeks in blue) that tries to show all the phases of this battle.  It is complicated and, I think, makes it hard to understand what happened there. It also contains an error.  The article specifically states that Persian cavalry were “not engaged”, yet the map shows two Persian cavalry units right in the middle of the struggle.
I have worked with one of the mapmakers at the map workshop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop) to create a series of simple maps, that accompany the text as it stands today, and that attempts to illustrate each of the phases of this battle. The project was completed in March 2021.
The maps are to scale and closely match the existing topography of present-day Marathon.  The maps also show the only two remaining relics of the battle, the Tumulus Mound and the Trophy of Marathon. 
 
The lineup of the two armies on the day of the battle conforms to the article:
“…the Athenian army marched quickly to block the two exits from the plain of Marathon, and prevent the Persians moving inland."[35][36]
"The camp of the Athenians was located on a spur of mount Agrieliki next to the plain of Marathon; remains of its fortifications are still visible."[79]
 
The phases of the battle itself are based on the location of the Tumulus Mound, that might show the location of heaviest Greek losses, and the Trophy of Marathon, that might show the location of heaviest Persian losses.
I enjoyed working with the mapmaker on this project, he is very much the professional.  But I don’t know if what we have done is appropriate for this article. In any case I have set up the proposed draft of the new “Battle” section in my sand box, here: (link deleted), and I would welcome any comments. What do you think? Joe Bfsplk (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: A set of five new maps to illustrate the course of the battle 

message: the date needs to be changed. 
It was, according to
Plutarch, Camillus
§Cam.19.3  Again, on the sixth day of the month of Boedromion the Greeks defeated the Persians at Marathon,
That isn't the 17th of μεταγειτνιων. Luxporphyra (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong date for the battle