View Poll Results: Who would win, Persia or Athenai

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • Persia

    16 34.04%
  • Athenai

    25 53.19%
  • Can't decide, they both have their own strengths and weaknesses

    6 12.77%
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Who would win at this time, Persia or the Greeks?

  1. #1

    Default Who would win at this time, Persia or the Greeks?

    This is just a question for me to understand what you think who was the stronger faction at this time in military power in the year 559 B.C, there is a thread on this basicly, but as a poll i would be interesting, post coments if you wish. I know its doens't have a simple answer but it would be interesting to see what people think.
    Faeghi

    Edit: Athenai is changed to Greeks in general
    Last edited by Faeghi; September 12, 2005 at 06:55 AM.
    Rise of Persia: Modification Creator
    Successors of Alexander: Modifcation Leader
    http://www.riseofpersia.com/index.html
    Under the Patronage of Atheist Peace

  2. #2
    Opifex
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    15,154

    Default

    JUST Athens, before the fifth century when they were basically ruled by a Tyrant? You know they were under a tyrant for most of 6th century, only acquiring freedom around 510BC. So before 510 BC, just Athens by itself without any Greek cities? Without any navy? Against some of the more capable Persian rulers? I don't think Athens can really do anything there, no matter how strong the hoplite was...


    "If ye love wealth greater than liberty,
    the tranquility of servitude greater than
    the animating contest for freedom, go
    home from us in peace. We seek not
    your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch
    down and lick the hand that feeds you,
    and may posterity forget that ye were
    our countrymen."
    -Samuel Adams

  3. #3

    Default

    OK il make it then in general, the Greeks
    Rise of Persia: Modification Creator
    Successors of Alexander: Modifcation Leader
    http://www.riseofpersia.com/index.html
    Under the Patronage of Atheist Peace

  4. #4
    Hmmm's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,320

    Default

    The greeks had stronger soldiers( better armour and weapons ), but what they did gain in quality the persians gained in numbers. And even more. The persians is also rich, so they can get mercenaries to get more forces and build many more ships.

  5. #5

    Default

    At this time the persians didn't use mercenaries, they did'nt need to. They had all the man power of persia focused in one point. And with an all persian army and a very capable leader they proved their worth by conquering asia.

    However, The persian army did'nt change too much in the period between xerxes and cyrus. It made the fatal mistake of allowing other countries to use their own armies and styles of warfare instead of the roman style of manufacturing soldiers out of conquered people. This benevolence was their downfall on the field.

    Because the army barely changed I actually voted for greece, because there was a war and the greeks (With a LOT of luck) won it. This however does not prove anything except the lack of fighting ability in the subject people of persia. At marathon the persians did their job admirably, unfortunately they were let down by their subjects on the wings.

    History happened, there was a war and the greeks won. But had cyrus been there...

    And this really needs to be set straight - Persian numbers are widly exaggerated. And by widly I mean lunatic asylum style. The Persian (Persian nationals) army amounted to 24,000 proffesional men in the time of Cyrus. If you don't believe me check herodotus's account of the march out of sardis. Subject people are not a facor in this discussion. And neither are numbers if we analyse marathon as an example. (the persian element of the army did exactly what it should and broke the Athenian hoplites.)
    Last edited by rez; September 12, 2005 at 10:09 AM.

  6. #6
    Hmmm's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,320

    Default

    The persians themselfes was not SO many, 30.000 at most i would think, but they did have other peapoles that gaved them soldiers and that did increase thier numbers. I just voted on greeks because they won the greco-persian wars, but as rez says that does not prove anything.
    The navy that the persians may be able to get is surely much larger than the greeks can, giving them an advantage to the sea.
    I had a monumental idea this morning, but I didn't like it.

    Samuel Goldwyn

  7. #7
    Miles
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Persion troops were usually slaves, which is how they managed to get so many. The only real soldiers were the Immortals, they had good equipment and training, which is why they were feared by most nations.

  8. #8

  9. #9

    Default

    There were no slaves in the persian empire, Let alone the army. Do some reading on the persians before you slander them. Every persian man was trained to fight hard and every battle reported the persian contingents to themselves great justice. But they have a poor reputation because they lost in the end.

  10. #10
    Hmmm's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,320

    Default

    that is rigth, the persians did not use slaves because theyre are worthless in combat. What increased theire numbers was the conquered nations who sent troops, but theese was not as high quality as real persians. And remember the war is not only about land, but sea too, where the persians could get a much larger navy from both phoenicians and all other conquered nations.
    I had a monumental idea this morning, but I didn't like it.

    Samuel Goldwyn

  11. #11

    Default

    the persians win this one because they have cyrus the great, and athens by themselves couldnt hold out
    "Heaven cannot brook two suns, nor earth two masters." - Alexander the Great
    "I begin by taking. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right." - Frederick (II) the Great
    "Strike an enemy once and for all. Let him cease to exist as a tribe or he will live to fly in your throat again" -Shaka, King of the Zulu
    TRU

  12. #12

    Default

    If Greeks are united they will win (we all know that Greeks never get united), but Persia is a united empire.
    New pics on 24/4/2007

  13. #13
    Dorian's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Rez said: "There were no slaves in the persian empire, Let alone the army. Do some reading on the persians before you slander them." Dear Rez, let's don't mix wishful thinking with history! We do know of course that history is being written by the victors, but I we make use of certain sources, we should try to see the whole picture they provide us. For example, since you mentioned Herodotus, he discribed in a most admiring way the passage of Persian army from Asia to Europe, over a double bridge of tied ships. There - letting apart that he counts all armies and nations participating summing up to the astronomical number of over 1,5 million soldiers and auxiliaries - we see that their officers used whips to keep them moving. If such an army is not made up of slaves, then for sure is an army that hates its officers! And that was proved in the battles that followed: Persians did fight courageously, but most of their flanks were allways routed. The greatest proof of such an army's inability to win the greek phalanx face-to-face was given in Thermopylae: Without a traitor, this army was butchered for four days by 300 Spartans and 2400 local troops never famed for their potential... You say Greeks won "With a LOT of luck", but I keep thinking that if they knew the true virtues of the Persian army and did not let Leonidas alone, but instead send all their forces to Thermopylae, letting no passage in the mountains weakly guarded, they would have finished much earlier and Athens would not be turned to ashes twice! Be open-minded my friend and accept that free people fight always better that subjugates of imperia!

  14. #14

    Default

    I never said that they didnt fight better when they were fighting for freedom.

    But you misread my intentions, persian society EVEN when described by greeks does not have slaves. I wonder if you have read the clay tablets from persepolis? I know i have, there are extremely detailed receipts for the payment of labourers, no one is forced to work as a slave only as a paid workman or woman, And each are paid according to their skill - not gender or rank. Remember too that no inscription from a persian source has even mentioned slaves.

    As for the whips, the levies who were to cowardly to cross the bridge because it had collapsed the previous time appear to have been whipped at the entrance to make them march. This does not entail slavery, just poor levies ( who i might emphasise were definitley not persian ).
    Last edited by rez; December 08, 2005 at 08:44 AM.

  15. #15
    Dorian's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rez
    I never said that they didnt fight better when they were fighting for freedom.

    But you misread my intentions, persian society EVEN when described by greeks does not have slaves. I wonder if you have read the clay tablets from persepolis? I know i have, there are extremely detailed receipts for the payment of labourers, no one is forced to work as a slave only as a paid workman or woman, And each are paid according to their skill - not gender or rank. Remember too that no inscription from a persian source has even mentioned slaves.

    As for the whips, the levies who were to cowardly to cross the bridge because it had collapsed the previous time appear to have been whipped at the entrance to make them march. This does not entail slavery, just poor levies ( who i might emphasise were definitley not persian ).
    I reckon your quest for accuracy and I won't keep up on a route to misread your intentions. Instead, I congratulate you for your historical coverage on your mod. I am looking forward to see the end result!

  16. #16

    Default

    sorry i got a little over excited in the last post! I just have this urge to give persia a proper say in history. Thanks for you're enthusiasm, and that goes for everyone supporting us!

Posting Permissions

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