Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 190

Thread: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

  1. #1
    Blatta Optima Maxima's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Free Democratic People's Republic of Latvia
    Posts
    10,738

    Default Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    It is no secret that only elite units of the Iranian infantry were capable of holding their own in a fight. But why, oh why, did they not develop something more effective than the single rank spearmen + load of archers for their foot, or simply dedicate themselves to the cavalry?

    The archers were quite useless. The only use for missiles is to harass the enemy a bit before the melee ensues. The overly fixiation on the foot archers resulted in catastrophic failures when facing anything other than more archers. A single rank of spearmen is simply not enough, especially if those spearmen are not trained and equipped properly. In fact, sometimes even the front rank carried only bows, setting up shields on rests. Which means 90% of the Achaemenid infantry force could be neutralized by simply issuing shields to one's own troops.


    To sum up - the crusty-archer formation was inefficient and had little tactical use. More infantry or more cavalry would have made the army more efficient.

    Why did they use it?

  2. #2

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Roach View Post
    Why did they use it?
    why do you care all persian soldiars were meatshields to you anyways.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatta Optima Maxima View Post
    So you have reached the "NANANANANA I AM NOT LIZTENING, YOU ARE WRONG" phase. Just a couple of posts back you were bragging about how the Persians lost because of their inferiority, now you're saying you don't care?
    BOM to Kakabis
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=484498
    my AAR, please check it out

  3. #3

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    Quote Originally Posted by the persian Immortal View Post
    why do you care all persian soldiars were meatshields to you anyways.
    Good point.

    To answer your question. I have no idea why they used archers as the primary force.

    Why did the Greeks use the phalanx, why did the Romans use the cohort system. Why did the Mongols use horses.

    Why do some use chariots and elephants and others don't. It just the way it is.

    Spartans think the Persians were cowards cause they used archers in battle. But in reality it was a battlefield tactic to soften up the enemy. Any Roman commander would agree to that.

    It just the way it is.
    Proudly under the patronage of Tone
    Roma Surrectum Local Moderator

  4. #4
    Blatta Optima Maxima's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Free Democratic People's Republic of Latvia
    Posts
    10,738

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    Quote Originally Posted by the persian Immortal View Post
    why do you care all persian soldiars were meatshields to you anyways.
    Never said that. Just that Duncan head explicitely states the sparabara were inferior spearmen, and Nick Secunda claims they did not even wear armor most of the time.

    @century Don't get me wrong, archers have uses, but there is no point in having 10 archers to one infantryman. Archers are a support weapon, not a battle winner.
    Last edited by Blatta Optima Maxima; November 04, 2011 at 03:57 PM.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    Because horses are expensive....
    Roma Vicit Historian
    Rise of Persia 3 Tester/Art Wizard

  6. #6

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    Well, it might have been that due to the climate, most of the enemies they faced didn't wear nearly as much armor as the greeks did. Archers would have been useful against soldiers who wore light cloth armor and wicker shields. So they conquered most of the empire in this manner, going against people with little armor for the most part, and figured "hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it" The problem with this obviously shows once they went up against enemies who consistently wore heavy metal armor, like the greeks.

    Please rep me for my posts, not for the fact that i have a Pony as an Avatar.


  7. #7
    Blatta Optima Maxima's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Free Democratic People's Republic of Latvia
    Posts
    10,738

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    Hmm... Okay. But they could arm their archers with spears instead. That would be even cheaper.

    Not to mention that they could field large cavalry forces. If they were to cut back on, say, 6 archers and arm the other three with spears, they could afford 1 cavalryman instead of the archers. Result - more chance of beating enemies without treachery or relying on numbers.


    Edit: Babylonians, Assyrians, Lydians and others could field armored infantry of their own. All in all, the formation appears to have been very inefficient.
    Last edited by Blatta Optima Maxima; November 04, 2011 at 04:13 PM.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    I guess they adopted the "hillmen" traditions of the previous tribes east of the Zagros and were reluctant to adopt new methods of fighting, Herodotus mentions this as one of the causes for defeat at Plataea. In his description of the same battle he mentions Persian horse archers who the Greeks couldn't come to grips with, making you wonder why the Persians didn't recruit more of these warriors when they knew they were going to face the ponderous phalanx.

  9. #9
    Blatta Optima Maxima's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Free Democratic People's Republic of Latvia
    Posts
    10,738

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    Horse archers < phalanx.

    They needed more infantry, and more cavalry.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    archery was not just for war you know ! archery was more like a traditional thing as every persian was trained to use the bow ever since they were 5 .
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatta Optima Maxima View Post
    So you have reached the "NANANANANA I AM NOT LIZTENING, YOU ARE WRONG" phase. Just a couple of posts back you were bragging about how the Persians lost because of their inferiority, now you're saying you don't care?
    BOM to Kakabis
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=484498
    my AAR, please check it out

  11. #11
    Spike's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Bandung
    Posts
    3,980

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    and keep in mind, where Persia did falls against the Greeks, other peoples are much, more sucessful with missile based armies.

    Chinese actually went to more extreme, most of the time, their infantry, especially militia grade ones, are armed with crossbows and simple blades. Battles are fought like WWI with crossbows as guns, and big pavise-like shields as their trench walls... They did have armoured infantry as well as heavy cavalry on their own, especially after the warring states period and the mention of "Chivalry" re-stressed in Confucian-Buddhist teachings (that means close combats being more stressed again), but still, most of their army are crossbowmen, even armoured infantry training always include crossbow trainings.

    The ancient kingdoms in India and South east asia is also at the same line of thinkings, while they don't field crossbows till somewhere in medieval periods, except the Viets, who are close with Chinese anyway. Most of them are armed with... guess? bows. Indeed honourable one on one combat between generals also become the norm in the age of chivalry, but even when they do that, most of it involve shooting each others from top of chariots... with bows, and spears (javelins). Most of the infantry also always carrying several throwing spears, but unlike the Romans, these are operated more like skirmishers anyway, avoiding close contacts unless it was necessary.

    of course, you notice that all the missile-heavy civilization armies also always include some kind of strong cavalry force to break up their enemies, while not every of them develop the extreme points of Cataphract-clad troops, most of their cavalry (chariots and elephants included) did also become strong components of their army. But as you can predicts, these troops are expensive, and not everyone can afford to fight as cavalry, only nobles and rich men at most.

    The reason why Persia falls is actually about... intelligence of their generals (no offenses), while melee troops may sounds as mindless hacking barbarians, actually, close combat based troops forced, yeah, I say FORCED, the commanders to think about better tactics and battlefield senses... as well as force the commanders to not just give examples, but think for whole of the armies. If you notice, indeed, there's much more sucessful battlefield commanders coming from melee minded armies rather than missile based ones. Genghis Khan and Attila is indeed exceptions, but we can did naming more famous melee based army generals...

    ADD:
    with missile based armies, there's indeed tactics as well, but lazy ass nobilities (they exist everywhere) will generally prefer... superrior numbers... and that means more firepower and they need to just stand up and let their men shoot the enemies to death

    Annokerate Koriospera Yuinete Kuliansa


  12. #12

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blatta Optima Maxima View Post
    Horse archers > phalanx.
    fixed it
    Roma Vicit Historian
    Rise of Persia 3 Tester/Art Wizard

  13. #13

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    Quote Originally Posted by the persian Immortal View Post
    archery was not just for war you know ! archery was more like a traditional thing as every persian was trained to use the bow ever since they were 5 .

    Lets agree to disagree and not start that discussion again.

    Please rep me for my posts, not for the fact that i have a Pony as an Avatar.


  14. #14
    Blatta Optima Maxima's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Free Democratic People's Republic of Latvia
    Posts
    10,738

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    Ah, that discussion...


    Well, either way, being able to shoot a bow doesn't make one incapable of holding a spear.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blatta Optima Maxima View Post
    Horse archers < phalanx.
    The Seleucids would disagree after a i wiped them out as Parthia

  16. #16
    Blatta Optima Maxima's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Free Democratic People's Republic of Latvia
    Posts
    10,738

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsunegari View Post
    The Seleucids would disagree after a i wiped them out as Parthia
    In real life, the Parthians were largely unable to inflict defeat on the Greeks.


    Either way, horse archers require a lot of nomads. Giving infantry spears is easier.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatta Optima Maxima View Post
    In real life, the Parthians were largely unable to inflict defeat on the Greeks.
    emm dude ... disagree the greeks got owned by the parthians.


    Either way, horse archers require a lot of nomads. Giving infantry spears is easier.
    well why give missile troops long and hevy spears ? these guys weren't capble of melee they are trained to be excellent archers from childhood. and IMO using spearmen from allover the empire is easier then throw your valueble archers away, there was lots of tribes and conquered nations that could serve the persians eg asia minor greeks, hyrcanians ect
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatta Optima Maxima View Post
    So you have reached the "NANANANANA I AM NOT LIZTENING, YOU ARE WRONG" phase. Just a couple of posts back you were bragging about how the Persians lost because of their inferiority, now you're saying you don't care?
    BOM to Kakabis
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=484498
    my AAR, please check it out

  18. #18
    Blatta Optima Maxima's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Free Democratic People's Republic of Latvia
    Posts
    10,738

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    Quote Originally Posted by the persian Immortal View Post
    emm dude ... disagree the greeks got owned by the parthians.
    The Seleucids got owned by themselves, not Parthians.

    well why give missile troops long and hevy spears ? these guys weren't capble of melee they are trained to be excellent archers from childhood. and IMO using spearmen from allover the empire is easier then throw your valueble archers away, there was lots of tribes and conquered nations that could serve the persians eg asia minor greeks, hyrcanians ect
    Persian nobles trained from childhood, not all Persians.

    Even then, the archers were simply pointless. Give him a spear and he'll be more effective. Oh, and spears are not heavy, even "heavy" ones.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blatta Optima Maxima View Post
    The Seleucids got owned by themselves, not Parthians.


    Persian nobles trained from childhood, not all Persians.

    Even then, the archers were simply pointless. Give him a spear and he'll be more effective. Oh, and spears are not heavy, even "heavy" ones.
    This is against my better judgement, but:

    This. you cannot train every man in a nation every day for most of his life and expect your empire to last. You know the English longbowmen? they only trained for one day a week. the other days they were doing things like farming, craftswork. you know, things you need to survive and provide.

    The vast majority of people were farmers, which is a full-time job. they simply wouldn't have time for the level of practice you keep insisting they had.

    Thats the kind of training that a nomad tribe would go through, people who relied on hunting for almost all of thier food. The persian empire had long lost any trace of nomadism save in the desert tribes and on the steppe outskirts of the empire. Once you have agriculture established as the main source of food, hunting becomes the province of those who have time to spare, IE the noble class. the common farmer would be too busy tending his crops and making sure he got a good harvest to go hunting.
    Last edited by TWWolfe; November 05, 2011 at 03:20 PM.

    Please rep me for my posts, not for the fact that i have a Pony as an Avatar.


  20. #20
    Blatta Optima Maxima's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Free Democratic People's Republic of Latvia
    Posts
    10,738

    Default Re: Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

    Yes, I know.

Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •