Military mentality of Achaemenid leaders?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

250k is unlikely. Modern historians speculate between 79 and 149 thousand.

Yet any more than 1500 or so casualties (not just the dead - the wounded as well) is quite ridiculous in a 14 meter wide pass. I sincerely doubt they could lose 5 hazarabama to the last man in a pass no wider than a road.

[Anakarsis]

Well what i doubt is that they keep sending people after losing the first wave when arrow raining would eventually tire them down. The persian won so the greek could say anything since "the bodies were retired". Anyways for anything greater than a thounsand deaths im counting with the 5000 fighting hoplites that were there for most of the battle, not just the 300 spartans of the end, and that defended some point more wide than the 14 meter place

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

No they did not. They never left the pass. That is, until they were surrounded and slaughtered.

The casualties were most likely ~1000, since Herodotus claims that the 19 thousand other bodies were immediately buried so it would appear there were fewer casualties. Sounds like an excuse for a ridiculous claim to me.

[YuilenZ01]

We know that in, for example, ancient Greece, a leader had to be present in the thick of battle, enduring all the hardships of the common trooper, and that a Roman general was expected to ruthlessly pursue the annhilation of any enemy shedding as little Roman blood as possible (though auxiliaries didn't matter). We know that in Celtic societies the general had to lead by example, surpassing his warriors in bravery, skill and tenacity as well as virtue.

Do we know anything about the Achaemenid leader's mentality? From what can be discerned from Greek sources, a Persian general was not expected to do much, he was there to enforce the troops to do the king's bidding - a master with a whip, essentially. It also appears losses of life were of no concern to these men. The prime virtues - loyalty and brutality. Tactics generally limited to sending ever men to choke up the enemy meatgrinder.

Or is this traditional view false?

Most of what you said is true. Watch "Alexander" at the battle of Gaugamela. Darius stands in his chariot giving orders while everyone else obeys. That's how it was for all Persian generals. It wasn't much different than how we fight battles in Total War games. Or how when people play chess against one another. Ironically it's certainly how wars are fought today.

[YuilenZ01]

The Persians were well-known for amassing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in battles. The battles of Gaugamela against Alexander the Great consisted of several hundred thousand Persian troops, and this was after he took Egypt, the Levant, and Asia Minor. I wouldn't be surprised if Herodotus was correct about those numbers. You find it so hard to believe, I'm sure in 200 years people will find it highly unlikely that the world's population could've jumped from 4 billion to 6 billion from the 1950's to the 1990's. But it happened.

You think it's impossible for such a large population to have existed back then, but I wonder if any of you have actually been all over the Middle East. Back in those days, the climate was much less hot, and more fertile. It allowed for more widespread populations and big cities. The population of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and the southern Asia/China was around 40-50 million people at that time, and the Persian Empire controlled roughly 40% of the world's population. I find it very believable that the Persians would send less than 1 tenth of their population on a military campaign against a vast region of cities and nations.

At the time of their invasions, there was peace on all sides of their empire, except for in the direction of Greece. They could've easily afforded to send the vast majority of their forces westward to Greece. While I find it very believable that the Persian invasion force DID number roughly 1 million soldiers, I'll be on the safe side and say it was anywhere from 500,000 to 750,000.

If the Assyrians were able to field over 200,000 for their campaigns, owning half the lands the Persians did, why do you believe that such a vast empire could only muster a measly 79,000 to 120,000?

Well, I guess I'm better informed..

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Ok, how do you suppose those soldiers were fed, then? BTW, if the Persian army numbered a million, the trail would still be marching from Sardis while the vanguard would already be in Athens.

[the persian Immortal]

Most of what you said is true. Watch "Alexander" at the battle of Gaugamela. Darius stands in his chariot giving orders while everyone else obeys. That's how it was for all Persian generals. It wasn't much different than how we fight battles in Total War games. Or how when people play chess against one another. Ironically it's certainly how wars are fought today.

......wasn't cyrus the great killed from a wound in the battle aginst sakas???? just because darius II didn't participated in combat that doesn't mean that persian commanders overally did the same, first of all there no doubt that the persian leaders were skilled worriors and not just some noble pretty boys second of all they did participate in combat since we got the evidanse that many were wounded or killed in battles, thired of all as long as you want to use movies as a source to support your statements countineuing this discussion will be completly pointless and hopeless.
THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Persians were well-known for amassing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in battles. The battles of Gaugamela against Alexander the Great consisted of several hundred thousand Persian troops, and this was after he took Egypt, the Levant, and Asia Minor. I wouldn't be surprised if Herodotus was correct about those numbers. You find it so hard to believe, I'm sure in 200 years people will find it highly unlikely that the world's population could've jumped from 4 billion to 6 billion from the 1950's to the 1990's. But it happened.

You think it's impossible for such a large population to have existed back then, but I wonder if any of you have actually been all over the Middle East. Back in those days, the climate was much less hot, and more fertile. It allowed for more widespread populations and big cities. The population of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and the southern Asia/China was around 40-50 million people at that time, and the Persian Empire controlled roughly 40% of the world's population. I find it very believable that the Persians would send less than 1 tenth of their population on a military campaign against a vast region of cities and nations.

At the time of their invasions, there was peace on all sides of their empire, except for in the direction of Greece. They could've easily afforded to send the vast majority of their forces westward to Greece. While I find it very believable that the Persian invasion force DID number roughly 1 million soldiers, I'll be on the safe side and say it was anywhere from 500,000 to 750,000.

If the Assyrians were able to field over 200,000 for their campaigns, owning half the lands the Persians did, why do you believe that such a vast empire could only muster a measly 79,000 to 120,000?

Well, I guess I'm better informed..

......dude....you're sure your a historien???? god ..... I think that rez would have a lot of fun with you if he was here.

Ok, how do you suppose those soldiers were fed, then? BTW, if the Persian army numbered a million, the trail would still be marching from Sardis while the vanguard would already be in Athens.

cocroach has a good point, herodotus always exaggerates things like it took the persian army 3 days to cross the thermopeal after they defeated the greeks , he also says that there was lake called ciestad(after the nes tes river) the lakes circumference in the persians way to greece were said to be 5.5KM and the water of the lake was still not enough for the soldiers and animals of the persian army so the persians pretty much sucked it dry... yeah I know what you thinking "how mindless can a historien be!!!" now lets say that the lakes depths average was only 1 Meters deep even so the lake would have sth like +3,000,000 ton water which is enough for 300,000,000 soldiers and animals according herodotus if the soldiers were 3,000,000 then the beast most have been atleast some thing more then 200,000,000 I doubt that there was so many animals (eg horses ect) on that time available to the persians even if persians the persians could muster so many horses they wouldn't have been able to feed 50,000,000 of them.

nibur says : "from herodotuses numbers I wonder how such a huge army didn't died out from starvation."

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Three days to pass Thermopylae is not ridiculous, since it implies no more than 150 thousand or so troops, not counting the trail of supply wagons, camp followers and stragglers.

[the persian Immortal]

Three days to pass Thermopylae is not ridiculous, since it implies no more than 150 thousand or so troops, not counting the trail of supply wagons, camp followers and stragglers.

ehem 79 thousand

dude pliz read all of the text and then respond , about what you said I'm not going to countineu discussing about how much it takes an army to cross the thermopeal its not Important anyways we got lots of evidence that showes that herodotus and yulian are wrong

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I personally agree with Duncan Head's estimate of 149 thousand troops and ~600-800 ships, of which less than 60 thousand troops were left with Mardonius. Of which, in turn, only 12 thousand Persians and 10-15 thousand Thebans ever engaged the enemy at Plataea.

[the persian Immortal]

I personally agree with Duncan Head's estimate of 149 thousand troops and ~600-800 ships, of which less than 60 thousand troops were left with Mardonius. Of which, in turn, only 12 thousand Persians and 10-15 thousand Thebans ever engaged the enemy at Plataea.

well you personally agree and I personally disagree , discussion ended.

I belive xerxeses army was no more then 79,000 men, I don't know how much was left with mardonius but persians should never have engaged in platae they should have countineued skirmishing untill they have expended all their ammo and then hevy cav should have been sent to mop up the rest of the greeks.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Except that was impossible because the Greeks were camped up on a steep slope, across a valley from the Persians. Whoever came down into the valley risked getting charged and cut down.


Why did the Persians attack, then? Because the Greeks were retreating, and Mardonius saw that as a golden opportunity. Unfortunately for him the center didn't make it in time, and he was left facing 12 thousand Spartans with 11-12 thousand Persians, with no cavalry support, uphill.

[Spike]

let us check mathematically, it's 14 m wide pass, yes?

let's count this way, a persian fighting stance, with Spara at hand and spear each, need at least 1m wide and 1.2m long space to fight.

14m/1 = 14 men in a row

how long the column if there was:
140000 people? it will be 12 km long
even 70000 people it will be 6 km

actually, the more probable reason is, the Thermophylae pass, is the one where the fiercest fights happened, I bet a lot of the troops must be at the other way try to flank and counterflanks as well

so numbers larger than 140000 is possible.

and well? 1000000 people? once you see one of the most Godawful cramped city in the world (Jakarta), where practically 20 million men is located in thin strip of slum, while the rest is spread in not so big area of land and that land has too many non-residence buildings, you can look that space needed to contain 1000000 people is not that much...

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Remember that the usual marching formation for any army is half the width of the average road, which means 4 men abrest. Then count the fact that there have to be gaps between units for cohesion, and that any army before the Imperial Legions of Rome was followed by at least equally numerous, although often more than twice the number of combatants a trail of supply carts, slaves and servants, wives, concubines, prostitutes, poor locals looking for food and shelter and others, commonly designated as camp followers.


Before you say "but it was not the average width", I say that changing the width of the formation every time the road becomes wider, and thus narrowing it down again, would take much, much longer. An army of 20 thousand men generally occupies no less than 15 kilometers. Which is the average distance covered in a day. So 60 thousand men - 3 days of soldiers marching by.

[Spike]

Remember that the usual marching formation for any army is half the width of the average road, which means 4 men abrest. Then count the fact that there have to be gaps between units for cohesion, and that any army before the Imperial Legions of Rome was followed by at least equally numerous, although often more than twice the number of combatants a trail of supply carts, slaves and servants, wives, concubines, prostitutes, poor locals looking for food and shelter and others, commonly designated as camp followers.

and keep in mind that 2000 years ago, cities are not as big as today, and outside those cities it's just plains / forests or maybe farms with not much of activities, sure, in urban conditions, 4 men abrest is the best they can do, but outside the city walls?

and yeah, camp followers should be counted too, but they won't follow too close with battle situations
such as follow directly to the spears of the Spartans in Thermophylae

i bet they will be at least 20 km away from there

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

It doesn't matter what the ground is like, armies march on roads pretty much always when they're there. Why half the road? So cavalry and officers can move along the army. Also, the army had to be able to deploy at a moment's notice.

You clearly lack understanding of basic logistics.

[Spike]

It doesn't matter what the ground is like, armies march on roads pretty much always when they're there. Why half the road? So cavalry and officers can move along the army. Also, the army had to be able to deploy at a moment's notice.

You clearly lack understanding of basic logistics.

and can 4 men wide ranks deploy at a moment's notice?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Men grouped in units, and easily accessible to officers can deploy much quicker than a strewn out blob.

[the persian Immortal]

guys guys this discussion is going off-topic are what does all this have to do with persian leaders?????

[century x]

Someone needs to close this. We all have our points and counter points but Blatta Optima Maxima is just trying to piss us all off. You like to discuss the Persian past but you insult anything sort of information that is given to you as unreliable or unworthy of being a source. You only accept Greek sources and we have all agreed that herodotus made outlandish claims.

The Persian empire controlled almost half the world's population. But that does not mean we can even guess the size of the army that was sent to Greece. The sources are to unreliable and conflict with themselves. Some say 1 million some say 250,000, some say 150,000. In my opinion I go the middle and say 200,000 and that includes combat troops, support people, wagons, women of pleasure, etc.

Bottom line is we can see you know your stuff and history of the middle east but it is very clear that you are biased towards the Persian culture and past. And any true historian or individual who loves history cannot be biased in any shape or form

And again this has nothing to do with the Military mentality of Achaemenid leaders.

Have a great day