Why were archers the primary force in Achaemenid armies?

[YuilenZ01]

It is no secret that only elite units of the Iranian infantry were capable of holding their own in a fight. But why, oh why, did they not develop something more effective than the single rank spearmen + load of archers for their foot, or simply dedicate themselves to the cavalry?

The archers were quite useless. The only use for missiles is to harass the enemy a bit before the melee ensues. The overly fixiation on the foot archers resulted in catastrophic failures when facing anything other than more archers. A single rank of spearmen is simply not enough, especially if those spearmen are not trained and equipped properly. In fact, sometimes even the front rank carried only bows, setting up shields on rests. Which means 90% of the Achaemenid infantry force could be neutralized by simply issuing shields to one's own troops.


To sum up - the crusty-archer formation was inefficient and had little tactical use. More infantry or more cavalry would have made the army more efficient.

Why did they use it?

Because that's what the Assyrians used. Heavy archers. Of course, the Persians also used whatever rabble they could throw at their enemies in the lands they conquered, but archery is a grand profession to have. It doesn't matter how good of a swordsman you are, even with iron armor, if you get shot with half a dozen arrows, you're dead.

The idea is to rain hellish death down on your foes until you have expended ALL of your arrows, and then you send your infantry lines to clean up what's left. The bow and the spear have always been extremely powerful symbols in the Middle East and in all of Asia. The Persians had such a bad defeat when they fought the Greeks not because of their tactics, but because Darius invaded Greece thinking everyone would surrender. It was the same for Xerxes. They invaded with a massive horde of rabble and thought that sheer numbers would scare the Greeks into defeat. They never really planned for resistance, and never really prepared for a real invasion.

But if they had, there's a very good possibility we'd all be speaking some modern form of Persian right now.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Bull

The Persians weren't rabble, and there was at least 30 thousand of them available at all times. Medes weren't rabble, they fought the same way. The Kassites weren't rabble. The Hyrcanians weren't rabble. The Saka weren't rabble. The Assyrians weren't rabble. The Egyptians weren't rabble... Overall, there really was no rabble in the Achaemenid army.

[the persian Immortal]

That small point there were normally rep is means too many infraction? XD did not known

well now you know oh BTW have you ever brushed your teeth?

anyways let's get back on topic

[QUOTE]

Because that's what the Assyrians used. Heavy archers. Of course, the Persians also used whatever rabble they could throw at their enemies in the lands they conquered, but archery is a grand profession to have.

cocroach have already answered this , what do you mean by saying that "persians used whatever rabble they could throw at their enemies"????

the persians military were baced on orginaization not everyone could participate in them if you want I can send you a good link that may help youchanging your wrong point of view

It doesn't matter how good of a swordsman you are, even with iron armor, if you get shot with half a dozen arrows, you're dead.

sth I agree with actually by saying half a dozen you exaggerating a bit 1 arrow acuratly shoot is enough, cuz every armour have it's own weakness

The idea is to rain hellish death down on your foes until you have expended ALL of your arrows, and then you send your infantry lines to clean up what's left. The bow and the spear have always been extremely powerful symbols in the Middle East and in all of Asia

hmmm yeah just that the persians sent their cav to clean up what was left from the helpless foe.

. The Persians had such a bad defeat when they fought the Greeks not because of their tactics, but because Darius invaded Greece thinking everyone would surrender. It was the same for Xerxes. They invaded with a massive horde of rabble and thought that sheer numbers would scare the Greeks into defeat. They never really planned for resistance, and never really prepared for a real invasion.

dude stop saying that(rabble) over and over again your bugging me

anyways I disagree with this sir don't you think people will learn from the past ??? if the greeks didn't surrendered in the first invasion there is in fact little chanse that they will surrender in the second invasion and belive me xerxeses advisers knew this better then you and I.

and how strong was xerxeses army anyways ..... 3,000,000??? yeah that would really scare kratos away but 79 thousand who can be trapped and stopped in the narrow mountain ways of greece won't do, the greeks indeed feared the persians but that doesn't mean that they would give up their homes and families at least the spartans would never do that.

and again xerxeses advisers were aware of this stuff more then you and I.

But if they had, there's a very good possibility we'd all be speaking some modern form of Persian right now.

nah persians never really invaded greece because of their hunger for more land ... unlike alexander the persians didn't wish to conquer the world they invaded greece cuz the greeks needed to be given a good lesson after what they had done eg supporting rebalions in the persian empire.

Bull

The Persians weren't rabble, and there was at least 30 thousand of them available at all times. Medes weren't rabble, they fought the same way. The Kassites weren't rabble. The Hyrcanians weren't rabble. The Saka weren't rabble. The Assyrians weren't rabble. The Egyptians weren't rabble... Overall, there really was no rabble in the Achaemenid army.

it's true but the sakas could have been identified as rabbles they were after all nomadic invaders right? but as I said persians military was baced on organization rather then wildly spaming all dudes on their way to fight in the persians standing army unless yulian is talking about mercenaries there were no real rabble in the persian army even mercenaries were usually not rabbles IIRC.

[century x]

nah persians never really invaded greece because of their hunger for more land ... unlike alexander the persians didn't wish to conquer the world they invaded greece cuz the greeks needed to be given a good lesson after what they had done eg supporting rebalions in the persian empire.

But seriously. You have on one end a civilization from the middle east that takes the bow and arrow very seriously. Consider it to be a vital skill that one must learn.

Then you have the other civilization(The Greeks) that on average prefer not to use the bow in battle. Now I know the Greeks have their ELITE archers(crete, etc) but from what I know the Greeks viewed the bow in battle as something not worthy. (I know the Spartans hated them)

Like I have said previously the Bow is a very important weapon in the middle east especially in the Persian empire. And since the commanders knew this they used it to its best. If you can engage an enemy that is 300 yards out OR more and unleash 10,000 arrows on them. And with those 10,000 arrows you release multiple volleys then whatever is left you can clean up with your cavalry and call it a day. I just see that as using good tactics. Now I know I over simplify that but that is basically the whole of it

Also let us view it from a commanders point of view. If someone comes up to him and says you have NO HONOR because you use arrows in battle and use so many that the enemy is severely destroyed even before they get any where near you. Well the commander will flat out tell you that he is trying to minimize deaths in his own army and preserve Morale. Why is he going to do a flat out charge against a heavily armored enemy. When he knows before he does that he can soften them up a bit

[DarthLazy]

They were more raiders than an actual elite.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Greeks DID have elite archers - the richest people, who could afford time for training with the bow as well as full panoply for both roles.

[century x]

Greeks DID have elite archers - the richest people, who could afford time for training with the bow as well as full panoply for both roles.

Let me ask you. What was the percentage of Rich individuals in Greek populations that can afford that kind of luxury? Like the average...Was it 5%, 10%, 20%?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Did I ever say they were numerous? They were just hoplites who could shoot a bow if need be. Hoplites were generally about 5% of the population of the poleis and surroundings. Archer hoplites - probably no more than some 1-5% of the number of hoplites.


What amuses me is that you Iranians kinda hurt your own cause by arguing with me - since we're on the same ing side. I hate Greek hype and demonization of "easterners" (possibly because western Europeans see all eastern Europeans apart from Greeks and the Finns as primitive and stupid; or you could just look at my goddamn signature) just as much as you do. It's just that I am arguing objectively.

[century x]

Did I ever say they were numerous? They were just hoplites who could shoot a bow if need be. Hoplites were generally about 5% of the population of the poleis and surroundings. Archer hoplites - probably no more than some 1-5% of the number of hoplites.


What amuses me is that you Iranians kinda hurt your own cause by arguing with me - since we're on the same ing side. I hate Greek hype and demonization of "easterners" (possibly because western Europeans see all eastern Europeans apart from Greeks and the Finns as primitive and stupid; or you could just look at my goddamn signature) just as much as you do. It's just that I am arguing objectively.

Yea I love your sig. And wow 5% that is low. I thought it would have been more.

[TWWolfe]

Yea I love your sig. And wow 5% that is low. I thought it would have been more.

Thats actually a pretty high portion of your population to militarize. For example, It was considered strange (and a bit intimidating to its neighbors) when Napoleonic-era Prussia had about 3% of its population in the military. The U.S. Military right now is less than 1%.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Heh, the Persians themselves were more than 5% militarized. Lemme recall - IIRC it was 2 rotating baivarbam, 1 baivarbam of anusiya, and reserves of older, already landed soldiers.

5% is not much for a citizen levy, btw. Don't forget standing forces of hoplites only became commonplace during the peoloponnesian war.

[Anakarsis]

5% is a lot already, is about half of the military effort of Germany in 1943 when they already lost the war and were fighting to avoid being invaded

Seriously, the image of "rabble" is already very discredited by now. If somebody wants to use it they could be able to show some evidency, which i sincerely think that they would never found. And Sakas were not "rabble". they were nomads, right, but that by no means say that they were individially ill-prepared, weaker, unskilled, or coward.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Go tell that to Genghis Khan.

[Spike]

anyway, what about the archery topic?

[the persian Immortal]

.............ARCHER-HOPLITES ???????

this is just not true, 5% is a lot, and I personally never heard about hoplite-archers .

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Hoplites weren't trained soldiers, they were a citizen levy. They were untrained, for the most part, and thus fought as spearmen.

The richer hoplites could spare time for training, and bows require a lot of time to master. So a hoplite wielding a bow would be well off. Of course, the phalanx was still where they fought on most occasions.

[Spike]

Hoplites weren't trained soldiers, they were a citizen levy. They were untrained, for the most part, and thus fought as spearmen.

The richer hoplites could spare time for training, and bows require a lot of time to master. So a hoplite wielding a bow would be well off. Of course, the phalanx was still where they fought on most occasions.

then, why most of the time, the Greek drawn archers from mountain herdsmen? and generally poor men who can't afford aspis?

and everywhere, the elite rich part of them will either fought as elite hoplites, or later (or in Thessaly and Macedon), as the cavalry?

[Aper]

... guys, much of this discussion makes no sense at all.

I don't want to be annoying, but someone should stress that the greeks at Platea were not the greeks at Cunaxa, that themselves were not the macedonians of Alexander III. These armies had very little in common.

The same can be said about Achemenids, Arsacids and Sasanids.

You just can't treat armies from different ages, having in common only in a very broad sense the geographical origin, as the same thing.
From an historical point of view, this is plain wrong.

My 2cents.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Yeah, we know all that. No one is retarded enough to see the Macedonian phalanx and cavalry force as identical to the all infantry archaic hoplite armies. Same can be said of the Achaemenid army.

[TWWolfe]

We are aware of that. however, there are enough similarities that parallels can be drawn between most of the armies. After all, the Hoplite changed very little over the course of its history.