I was trying to head off a six page discussion that went no-where
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.
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.
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.
Please rep me for my posts, not for the fact that i have a Pony as an Avatar.
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.
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.
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
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.
Proudly under the patronage of Tone
Roma Surrectum Local Moderator
Roma Vicit Historian
Rise of Persia 3 Tester/Art Wizard
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.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).
Alexander might have had something to say about that..in an open battle greeks would get their asses kicked by the persians.
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.