Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 190

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

  1. #21

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

    I was trying to head off a six page discussion that went no-where

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


  2. #22

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

    They could have hired large numbers Scythians or Dahae i guess, as the Romans hired Sarmatians and "Huns". But i do agree that heavy infantry seems like it would have been more available given Mesopotamian tradition, i guess they didn't want the Babylonians or Assyrians to remain heavily armed (though they are referenced as a part in the Persian army by Herodotus). An army similar to the one led by Esarhaddon or Ashurbanipal invading Greece might have had much more success (the Egyptians who were defeated by Assyria employed Greek mercenaries).
    Last edited by Kitsunegari; November 05, 2011 at 04:18 PM.

  3. #23

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsunegari View Post
    They could have hired large numbers Scythians or Dahae i guess, as the Romans hired Sarmatians and "Huns". But i do agree that heavy infantry seems like it would have been more available given Mesopotamian tradition, i guess they didn't want the Babylonians or Assyrians to remain heavily armed (though they are referenced as a part in the Persian army by Herodotus). An army similar to the one led by Esarhaddon or Ashurbanipal invading Greece might have had much more success (the Egyptians who were defeated by Assyria employed Greek mercenaries).
    I agree but you should keep in mind greeks succeeded to defend them self by hiding in their homeland and fight the persians in tiny mountain ways were cavelry looses it's value arrows won't do much damage when shooting at hevy infantry with giant shields since you can't shoot them in the flanks or rare so they can take cover behind their shields, so the battle would come down to infantry .... persian infantry relayed on mobility (actually all the persian army was baced on mobility).

    in an open battle greeks would get their asses kicked by the persians.

    and that's why greek merc in the egyption ranks didn't stand a chanse against the assyrians.
    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

  4. #24
    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
    in an open battle greeks would get their asses kicked by the persians.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plataea
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mycale
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_cunaxa

  5. #25

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


    To summarize the last one, the outnumbered Greeks routed the Persians twice in open battle, and kept fighting when all the rest of Cyrus Persian troops had fled.

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


  6. #26

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

    The Persians shouldn't have engaged at Plataea, if they had kept harassing the Greeks with missile cavalry and hampered their supply routes the Greek force might have melted away. Same deal with Alexander's invasion: the Greeks were hundreds of miles away from home in an alien country while the Persians still had naval bases in the Aegean: basically the only way the Persians could have lost was to offer battle.

  7. #27

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsunegari View Post
    The Persians shouldn't have engaged at Plataea, if they had kept harassing the Greeks with missile cavalry and hampered their supply routes the Greek force might have melted away. Same deal with Alexander's invasion: the Greeks were hundreds of miles away from home in an alien country while the Persians still had naval bases in the Aegean: basically the only way the Persians could have lost was to offer battle.

    But if they hadn't offered battle, any rebellious elements would have taken that as a sign that the empire thought it was too weak to fight against the greeks, and it might have resulted in rebellions all across the empire.

    it was a lose/lose situation.

    plus, the greeks did have several ports in the area. they were Alexanders first targets, to make sure he had a route to get supplies to his army. And i believe at least on kingdom/satrapy in Asia minor went over to him wholesale, with its queen even adopting him as her heir.
    Last edited by TWWolfe; November 06, 2011 at 08:21 PM.

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


  8. #28
    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?

    At Plataea, the Persian center with most of the reserves never engaged. What happened was the outnumbered Thebans on the Persian right getting pushed back, and 11 thousand Persians on the right facing 12 thousand Spartans, on a steep slope. Mardonius died in combat and the Persians were broken.

    At Mycale, Ionians defected to the other Greeks, leaving Persians to fight to the death.

    At Cunaxa, according to Rez, the left retreated on purpose, delaying a significant portion of Cyrus' force.


    I was not saying they were weak or , but that they did lose on open field.

  9. #29

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

    I think also Persians used archers a lot due to the long history the Persians have had with the bow.

    For example even I was taught at an early age how to use a bow and arrow.

    It is completely useless in today's world but just the fact I was taught it shows me that archery is some what important to the Persian people.
    Proudly under the patronage of Tone
    Roma Surrectum Local Moderator

  10. #30
    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?

    ...

    You are still taught archery?

  11. #31

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

    Rebellions in an empire that size happen regardless of the results of war, and it didn't collapse after the humiliating loss of Ionia and Thrace, so i doubt a tactical decision like that would have had major repercussions. In the case of Alexander's invasion, my understanding is that the Greek mercenary Memnon had succeeded in bringing a large navy to the Aegean to capture the Ionian islands and could have menaced the mainland of Greece before his untimely death.

  12. #32

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blatta Optima Maxima View Post
    ...

    You are still taught archery?
    Yup according to my grand father archery is a vital skill that a Persian must achieve.

    It is useless except for competition and I have not picked up a bow in years and years.
    Proudly under the patronage of Tone
    Roma Surrectum Local Moderator

  13. #33

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/justin/english/trans41.html
    One Arsaces, a man of uncertain origin, but of undisputed bravery, happened to arise at this time; and he, who was accustomed to live by plunder and depredations, hearing a report that Seleucus was overcome by the Gauls in Asia, and being consequently freed from dread of that prince, invaded Parthia with a band of marauders, overthrew Andragoras his lieutenant, and, after putting him to death, took upon himself the government of the country. Not long after, too, he made himself master of Hyrcania, and thus, invested with authority over two nations, raised a large army, through fear of Seleucus and Theodotus, king of the Bactrians. But being soon relieved of his fears by the death of Theodotus, he made peace and an alliance with his son, who was also named Theodotus; and not long after, engaging with king Seleucus, who came to take vengeance on the revolters, he obtained a victory; and the Parthians observe the day on which it was gained with great solemnity, as the date of the commencement of their liberty.
    In short, Arsaces wins over the Seleucids and becomes king of Parthia
    Roma Vicit Historian
    Rise of Persia 3 Tester/Art Wizard

  14. #34
    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?

    So he was some brigand, basically.

  15. #35
    Halie Satanus's Avatar Emperor of ice cream
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,995
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    I agree but you should keep in mind greeks succeeded to defend them self by hiding in their homeland and fight the persians in tiny mountain ways were cavelry looses it's value arrows won't do much damage when shooting at hevy infantry with giant shields since you can't shoot them in the flanks or rare so they can take cover behind their shields, so the battle would come down to infantry .... persian infantry relayed on mobility (actually all the persian army was baced on mobility).
    I think there's some truth here. The Greeks were used to fighting battles in rough and rocky terrain where cavalry support was less effective. In fact cavalry was almost non existent in Greek warfare until the later half of the wars between the Greek city states. I think I read somewhere it was the use of a cavalry and skirmish based army that finally took the Spartans to the cleaners. They themselves then adopting cavalry where they had previously been unimpressed by the virtues of horses.

    in an open battle greeks would get their asses kicked by the persians.
    Alexander might have had something to say about that..

    I think the answer really is simply that they didn't know any better, and perhaps there was some level of arrogance in the Persian military leadership that they didn't need to change their style of warfare to defeat the rabble of the Greek army, at least that is how they may have viewed it. It is recorded that they adapted over time.

    Since the use of archers was still at the forefront of warfare until firearms became more used well into the middle ages I guess the argument that they were not as viable as heavy infantry is not very strong. Henry the Eighth made it law that all Englishmen trained in the use of bows, and that at a time when armour was far superior to anything the ancient Greeks had.

  16. #36

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blatta Optima Maxima View Post
    So he was some brigand, basically.
    before he became king/chieftain over the Parni
    Roma Vicit Historian
    Rise of Persia 3 Tester/Art Wizard

  17. #37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Blacksmith View Post
    before he became king/chieftain over the Parni
    He secured a fairly minimal region for Parthia. The vast majority of Parthian conquests were not done by Arsaces. Not saying he doesn't deserve credit for founding Parthia.

  18. #38

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Drtad View Post
    He secured a fairly minimal region for Parthia. The vast majority of Parthian conquests were not done by Arsaces. Not saying he doesn't deserve credit for founding Parthia.
    Mithradates I seems to have expanded Parthian control over a huge region in a relatively short time, but i've never seen any detailed accounts of how it happened really, i guess this was also a time when the Seleucids were too divided to offer strong resistance.

  19. #39

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsunegari View Post
    Mithradates I seems to have expanded Parthian control over a huge region in a relatively short time, but i've never seen any detailed accounts of how it happened really, i guess this was also a time when the Seleucids were too divided to offer strong resistance.
    Yes- there were all sorts of usurpations and illegitimate kings in the 2nd century, and the constant infighting allowed the Parthians to steamroll over Eastern Seleucid territories.

  20. #40
    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?

    But the Greeks weren't the only ones fielding heavy infantry.

    Say, Assyrians, Egyptians, Karians, Lydians, Syrians, Phoenicians... Why didn't they adopt some to counter revolts?

Posting Permissions

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