I'm going to be spending a lot of time over the next year teaching and writing about Herodotus and the Persian Wars. I intend to post many of my thoughts on this blog. At the outset though, it is worth thinking briefly about the historiography of the conflicts between Greece and Persia.
Traditionally, the Persian Wars were seen from a Classical perspective. Inevitably, this created a Hellenocentric discourse, which viewed the conflict as being of great significance - even in the modern world. The battle of Marathon, in particular, has been portrayed as the crucible which forged democracy. The modern film 3oo has been instrumental in depicting the freedom loving Greeks against the tyrannical and oppressive Persians.
More recently, the study of the Achaemenid empire has provided a contrasting viewpoint of a conflict mostly waged on the western borders of a huge empire. Marathon, Salamis, Thermopylae and Plataea were only of minor importance for an imperial state which was used to the tides of war. The Achaemenid empire was expansionist - and had lost armies before (notably in Egypt). Revolts closer to the heartland of the empire were also of more importance to them than the activities of a few fractious Greek states on their periphery.
It is also noteworthy that relations between the Greek states and Persia continued even after the debacle at Plataea. One thinks of the Athenian hero Themistocles living out his days in the Achaemenid court and Persian involvement in the Peloponnesian War. Not all Greek states were implacably opposed to Persian expansion - even during the invasion of 480/479 BC.
The conflict between Greece and Persia should not be studied as a series of battles, but rather through the longue duree. For the Greek states, the Persian conflict was a cold war, which sometimes grew very hot indeed.