Outch!
Now you bring in another topic for which the views of professionals are extremely contradictionary, while the views of the wider public (thanks to BS like '300') is still another universe awy.
Please keep in mind that for the complete 'Persian Wars' there are nothing but Greek sources available. The Persians did not even bother to write anything about the whole affair.
What can be excluded for certain, is that the Persians wanted to conquer Greece and failed.
The Persian Empire was already much too big and there wuld have been no sense at all to expand somewhere into the wild uncivilzed West, where nothing of any interest was to be found.
The known facts are: Greek cities on the west coast of Anatolia, who were part of the Persian Empire, did not want to pay their taxes.
They employed mercenaries from Athens, who went from the coast to Sardis, the capital of the Persian Satrap (while he was busy elsewhere) and burned it down.
They left for home with their plunder and also left their employers to be disciplined by the returning Satrap.
So, the Athenians had burned down a Persian city and in return the Persians (using the same Greek cites that were the cause for all the trouble for providing the navy) went to Greece and burned down Athens and after a whilethey left.
And that's about what we know for sure.
All the other stories are ... well, stories.
And I really wouldn't call Minoan and Mycenaean cultures 'Greek'. We have no idea how these peoples called themselves, if ever they had a common name for themselves.
Homeros, when talking about these heroes of olden times, never uses the word 'Greeks' for them, but Danaens or Achaeans instead.
If I would speak about 'Neolithic Germans' there would be an outcry, and rightly so.
If somebody would speak about 'Chalcolithic Americans' or 'Palaeolithic Englishmen' there would be an outburst of laughter, and rightly so.
If somebody speaks about 'Bronze Age Greeks' ...