Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

[the persian Immortal]

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.

exactly, super hevy greeks wouldn't even be able to catch up with mobile persian forces.

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.

cool ! were are you from ? I did know that the turkamans living in Iran are thought the skill of horse archery , here in mazandaran we are thought wretling as it is a traditional.

were are you from mate ?

[century x]

cool ! were are you from ? I did know that the turkamans living in Iran are thought the skill of horse archery , here in mazandaran we are thought wretling as it is a traditional.

were are you from mate ?

Khuzestan Province

But I live in America.

But you see that in Iran there are many many different traditions depending on what part of Iran.

I can imagine back in the old days of the Persian empire. Kids were taught at a very early age on how to use a bow. And probably also how to fight hand to hand. The Persian people really do have a long traditional history with the bow and also with the horse. But in today's world the tradition of learning how to ride a horse has almost completely disappeared.

I think almost every dynasty had their own form of elite archers. Ones that can hit a target with their eyes closed kind of accuracy. It is only natural that Persian commanders would put two and two together and get all kinds of archers put them in the army and use them to their greatest capacity.

Also a side note: Read the story " Arash the Archer " and you will get a deeper understanding on why the Persians have this afflict with the Bow and Arrow.

[the persian Immortal]

[QUOTE]

Khuzestan Province

But I live in America.

ok cool I didn't knew that there are still people living in khuzestan with persian origin today most of them have arab ancientry, but you must be a persian anyways

But you see that in Iran there are many many different traditions depending on what part of Iran.

oh I know

I can imagine back in the old days of the Persian empire. Kids were taught at a very early age on how to use a bow. And probably also how to fight hand to hand. The Persian people really do have a long traditional history with the bow and also with the horse. But in today's world the tradition of learning how to ride a horse has almost completely disappeared.

well I think it has disappeared cuz it has lost it use today you wont use a horse you will use your car or other vhicles, and you don't have to use a bow to defend your self or in the wars since gunpoder in invented

I think almost every dynasty had their own form of elite archers. Ones that can hit a target with their eyes closed kind of accuracy. It is only natural that Persian commanders would put two and two together and get all kinds of archers put them in the army and use them to their greatest capacity.

well I think that's an other withness that persian commanders cared about their troops since every persian knew how to put the bow to good use , why risking their lives sending to a melee fight with super hevy hoplites while they can do more damage by shooting the greek basterds from afar.
?

Also a side note: Read the story " Arash the Archer " and you will get a deeper understanding on why the Persians have this afflict with the Bow and Arrow.

ah yeah ... arash-e kamangir

[QUOTE]

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.

that's what I'm trying to say, greeks were actually not mouch of a thread to the persians before alexander they were just a bunch of small angry citystates who kept fighting each other if they they could have defeated the persians on the open field then explain why they never conquered persia if they were so supirior in military ?

in platae it was an tactical error as I mentioned in post #41

"at mycale as cocroach said and wasmentioned in wiki too : The Ionian Greek contingents in the Persian army defected" so persians were betrayed.

Alexander might have had something to say about that..

and let me remind you that alexander was a macedonian not a greek (they had supirior cavelary )

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.

yeah what would the point in changing their style :

The Persian empire was feared by every Polis in Hellas from the sixth to the fourth centuries!
Every wanna-be Hegmon from the Peloponnesian war till Philip tried to get the King of Kings onside- to help them win.
Thats how Sparta became policeman of the Kings peace in 386. And how Thebes hoped to become the new power in Hellas-with Persian gold and Mercenaries

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.

yeah your right if only the EB team could understand this I hate to see I should use my entire armys ammo to kill 1 unit of levy phalanx

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Well, at Marathon arrows apparently had little effect. The Greek center was broken, but apparently by the Sparabara.


Actually, arrows were pretty useless against hoplites - who wore helmets, large shields, greaves and arm protection. That is, the richer ones. Not talking about the losers who could only afford a shield and spear - those would probably get slaughtered by arrows.

[the persian Immortal]

[QUOTE]

Well, at Marathon arrows apparently had little effect. The Greek center was broken, but apparently by the Sparabara.

hoplites got broken by sparabara!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, arrows were pretty useless against hoplites - who wore helmets, large shields, greaves and arm protection. That is, the richer ones. Not talking about the losers who could only afford a shield and spear - those would probably get slaughtered by arrows.

well I like to give the cradit to the giant shields cuz nomatter how tough the armour and helmet was arrows would have found their way in but when all of your body is covered by a giant bronze shield then ofcaurse arrows will loose their worth unless they are shooted from the rare were you don't have the protection from your shield.

[century x]

[QUOTE=the persian Immortal;10621990]

well I like to give the cradit to the giant shields cuz nomatter how tough the armour and helmet was arrows would have found their way in but when all of your body is covered by a giant bronze shield then ofcaurse arrows will loose their worth unless they are shooted from the rare were you don't have the protection from your shield.

One line of archers would shoot up so the hoplites would push their shield up while a second line will fire horizontal and nail them hard. That is one way

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

That could theoretically be achieved. However, the usual way of beating hoplites was... Hammer and anvil, of sorts - sparabara hold them, cavalry scatter and massacre them.

[AmirKhan]

Well, there are many answers on this.

I think because they lived primarly in desert-like areas, so having hoplites is no use. You would need to have a lot of units guarding the flanks, etc.
So light infantry, archers and cavalry was the main thing.


The same thing with the Greeks; why did they have hoplites and fought in phalanxes? Because it was easier for them, they lived in more mountain-like areas and did not have that much people that would go out and fight, the population was too small for huge armies.
So good quality heavy infantry is the only use.

While on the other hand Persians just took a bunch of guys and armed them with simple weapons, they thought that quantity > quality, which can be true sometimes.

If you want my opinion on it; archery is not for the cowards, but for the sly and "smart".
So bassicly I can say that Macedonian phalanxes were also for pussies, just standing there with dem long spears pointing at the running enemy.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

You seem to forget that the Persian army relied on infantry, and the sparabara were a shieldwall - with cuirasses, spears and heavy tower shields. They were not mobile, pletast-ish skirmishers. They were there to stand and fight.

Now, I seem to have figured it out - the satabam was kind of a swiss army knife, capable of all kinds of tasks.

[Spike]

btw, despite all the armoury, don't you know composite bows can actually pierce a sheet of galvanized iron? not from hundreds of metres I guess, but at close enough fighting.

Plus Close-Bow tactics are pretty much used against heavily armoured foes, I doubt Sparabara can break hoplites on melee... but in other hand, Sparabara protecting archers that fires up close to hoplites can indeed break them

[TWWolfe]

how think are we talking?

because the armor was thick enough when combined with the leather and cloth they wore underneath it, plus the shield was hammered metal over one or more layers of wood.

Whenever people fight against highly armored opponents, the bow is reduced to a support weapon rather than a battle winner. it needs to find those little kinks in the enemy armor to do any real damage. otherwise you end up like the crusaders. they LOOKED like pincushions, but since the arrows used up all thier force just getting through the armor, they didn't do any real damage to them.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

TWWolfe is right - arrows generally fail against armored opponents. Think of the armor od the hoplite - bronze helmet of rounded shape, perfect for deflecting strikes, huge, multi-layer wooden shield decorated with a milimeter or a tad less of bronze, greaves. The only way you are beating him is by getting in close. Or scattering them and massacring them with swords, since the aspis wasn't exactly a weildy shield.

Then again, it is equally hard to hit a sparabara with an arrow.


At Marathon the only way we can see the center broken, is that some more ranks than 1 or 2, maybe 4 (equal to the Greeks') simply outfought the untrained, thinner than usual hoplite line (hoplites were generally undrilled, and individual training was only conducted by those with a lot of spare time).

[the persian Immortal]

[QUOTE]

how think are we talking?

because the armor was thick enough when combined with the leather and cloth they wore underneath it, plus the shield was hammered metal over one or more layers of wood.

don't underestimate the power of a steal head arrow shooted from a strong composite bow, I do agree that the hoplites shield were pretty useful here as they were large enough to protect a hoplites body and strong enough to stand arrows, though in a melee fight they are uselss since it was too damn hevy in realaty if the hoplites gave up the phalanx formation like in 300 it would have been a great risk since they would become vunrable

Whenever people fight against highly armored opponents, the bow is reduced to a support weapon rather than a battle winner. it needs to find those little kinks in the enemy armor to do any real damage.

explain why they were so widly use even in the midevla times were armour had becamed way better in quality ?

I think your exaggerating the greeks armour ,if they didn't used their shields the persian would have easily shovered them with arrows.

otherwise you end up like the crusaders. they LOOKED like pincushions, but since the arrows used up all thier force just getting through the armor, they didn't do any real damage to them.

you compare the armours back in the crusaders with the one the greeks used ? (in fact few greeks were well armoured most of them would have been lucky if they got a helmet , they were given a shield and a spear and told to fight. and most of them were not even trained they were just regular people like you and me except the spartans ofcaurse.)

btw, despite all the armoury, don't you know composite bows can actually pierce a sheet of galvanized iron? not from hundreds of metres I guess, but at close enough fighting.

Plus Close-Bow tactics are pretty much used against heavily armoured foes, I doubt Sparabara can break hoplites on melee... but in other hand, Sparabara protecting archers that fires up close to hoplites can indeed break them

I agree , composite bow was very usefull against armour and that's why the elite archers among the greeks (the cretans) used it as well.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The Greeks weren't "given a spear and shield and told to fight". They bought whatever equipment they could afford, and went to war when called upon.

Of course, 99% were untrained and undrilled (pretty much). And yes, most could afford a spear, knife, shield and a greave for the left crus. Yet arrows were pretty much undone by the shield.

[TWWolfe]

They've always been used because they are useful as a skirmish weapon. Keep in mind, A general "man-killing" arrow will have a broad head, which gives it much less penetration power. Arrows meant to pierce armor, like bodkins, can punch deeper, but even then the chance of them going straight through and causing damage is lowered by the amount of armor they hit.And even if they do punch through, due to the nature of the arrowhead they are not going to cause nearly as much damage as a broad-head arrow. The reason we remember battles where the bow won so handily, like Agincourt, is not because they were inevitable thanks to the power of the bow. it was because they were huge upsets that no one could have expected.

My point being that you are only guaranteed to wound someone with an arrow if you hit them in a region of thier body not covered by any armor, otherise there is always a chance that the armor will stop the arrow before it causes anything more than minor damage. the example of the crusades was more to make a point, that an arrow getting through armor does not equal dead or wounded.

There is a reason archers were never a big part of most armies before the English longbow. Anytime men had decent armor and shields, the bow was rendered almost useless. They were useful for provoking the enemy, and for taking on the more lightly-armored troops, such as low-class levies, but they were unable to match the better armor of the main ranks.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

TBH, I think the archers would be useful along other broders - against the Scythians, Indians, Arabs and Kushites, as well as quelling popular revolts. The effectiveness of archers is undisputable - the Saka Paradraya feared getting into bowshot of Persians, for they knew they'd get mown down. Imagine how hilariously would a Thracian charge fail when up against, say, a hazarbama - in a single minute the 600-800 archers could deliver no less than 7200 arrows.


When facing heavier foes, like Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Anatolians or Greeks, they could resort to hammer and anvil, it appears. When fighting against other Persians I imagine the bow would take the backseat to infantry and cavalry, again.

[the persian Immortal]

[QUOTE]

TBH, I think the archers would be useful along other broders - against the Scythians, Indians, Arabs and Kushites, as well as quelling popular revolts. The effectiveness of archers is undisputable - the Saka Paradraya feared getting into bowshot of Persians, for they knew they'd get mown down. Imagine how hilariously would a Thracian charge fail when up against, say, a hazarbama - in a single minute the 600-800 archers could deliver no less than 7200 arrows.

I like this part thanks for posting this .

When facing heavier foes, like Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Anatolians or Greeks, they could resort to hammer and anvil, it appears. When fighting against other Persians I imagine the bow would take the backseat to infantry and cavalry, again.

yes it is true that cav were used in such situations, I agree, BUT it still doesn't mean that the arrows were useless against hevy armour as TWwolf said , they were obviusly not as effective as they were against lighter troops but hevy armour would still not be enough to save a men against arrow fire specially when the arrow is shoted from a closer distance , the thing that saved the greeks was their gaint shields not their armour.

The Greeks weren't "given a spear and shield and told to fight". They bought whatever equipment they could afford, and went to war when called upon.

Of course, 99% were untrained and undrilled (pretty much). And yes, most could afford a spear, knife, shield and a greave for the left crus. Yet arrows were pretty much undone by the shield.

^yes that's what I ment , it isn't actually important that they bought their equipment or not that was not my point, my point was that (as you said 99% of them were untrained and undrilled)

Yet arrows were pretty much undone by the shield

not completly you know , they shields would have undone the arrows if the greeks could hide behind them like in 300 (in the first battle) but Imagine arrows being shooted from multiplesides or imagine that the hoplites were engaged in melee and could not sit and hide behind their shields , what do you think will happen then ???? they will get raped by arrows

[QUOTE]

They've always been used because they are useful as a skirmish weapon. Keep in mind, A general "man-killing" arrow will have a broad head, which gives it much less penetration power. Arrows meant to pierce armor, like bodkins, can punch deeper, but even then the chance of them going straight through and causing damage is lowered by the amount of armor they hit.And even if they do punch through, due to the nature of the arrowhead they are not going to cause nearly as much damage as a broad-head arrow. The reason we remember battles where the bow won so handily, like Agincourt, is not because they were inevitable thanks to the power of the bow. it was because they were huge upsets that no one could have expected.

My point being that you are only guaranteed to wound someone with an arrow if you hit them in a region of thier body not covered by any armor, otherise there is always a chance that the armor will stop the arrow before it causes anything more than minor damage. the example of the crusades was more to make a point, that an arrow getting through armor does not equal dead or wounded.

the same can be said for swords and spears we can't say that a sword/spear wound no matter how deep it may be will 100% kill a person. the chanse that a swords hit will be blocked by a shield as much as an arrow fire, and ofcaurse an arrow fire can kill a hevy armoured men (not just light armoured levies) against hevy armour swords and any other weopen may also be useless (not just arrows) that's why people used AP weopens such as mace , axe ect ect. but that doesn't mean that none AP weopens were useless, they were actually were usefull , a man with a bow will kill more then a man with a sword.

There is a reason archers were never a big part of most armies before the English longbow. Anytime men had decent armor and shields, the bow was rendered almost useless. They were useful for provoking the enemy, and for taking on the more lightly-armored troops, such as low-class levies, but they were unable to match the better armor of the main ranks.

hmmmmm I thought that the koreans, japanese , indians , persians , mongols , turks tribes , turkamans , the sakas ect ect used the bow as a big part of their armies.

[kakabis]

i think i am late to post but cmon guys imagine 50000 arrows coming on you,it is desperate the Achaimenids won the battle before it could start so they created their empire with their archers and administration system (plus their super heavy cav for their time)!!!!but as we know arches couldnt harm greek hoplites too much...

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Well, 10 thousand Persian troops could fire some 72 000 arrows per minute at the least, but, as I said, they used cavalry to flank phalanxes - like they did at Malene.

[kakabis]

Yes they had an extremely effective and big cavalry force but they were no much for greek(mountainous terrain!!!!!!!!)