What did the Persian Immortals really look like?

[Kraut and Tea]

Since Rome II has been released various modders have released mods that add units to the Persian factions and almoust every single one of them adds the "Immortals" as a unit.

But all of those show the immortals as they were depicted in the movie "300":

Example from Farsovereign Persian Empire mod:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-for-Parthians

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Example from movie "300":

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yet with 300 being a movie of sprayed on muscles, and weirdly designed arrowheads, and a "war rhinoceros" it seemed pritty obvious to me that the actualy Persian Immortals did not run arround with sliver masks, wore black cloaks and fought with double swords in slow motion.
So I took a half an hour to do a bit of half assed research (googling) into what they may have really looked like and what their functions were.

At first I thought that like the Roman Pretorian Guard the Immortals may have been nothing but an overgloryfied bunch who served the "gestapo function" in the ancient states.
Yet what I read so far suggested otherwise:

The Immortals played an important role in Cyrus the Great's conquest of Babylon in 539 BC, Cambyses II's conquest of Egypt in 525 BC and Darius I's invasion of India's smaller western frontier kingdoms (western Punjab and Sindh, now in Pakistan) and Scythia in 520 BC and 513 BC. Immortals participated in the Battle of Thermopylae 480 BC^[3] and were amongst the Persian occupation troops in Greece in 479 BC under Mardonius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immorta...sian_Empire%29

The ancient Persian warriors were soldiers for the Persian Empire during the phases of its military life. The Immortals were the most renowned ancient Persian warriors, feared for their mass scale of attack and the fact that if you were to kill one Persian warrior another one would appear instantaneously giving the appearance of course, that they were indeed immortal.

It was during two phases of the Persian Empire, that the immortals were called upon to strike fear into their foes.

http://www.legendsandchronicles.com/...sian-warriors/

Ten Thousand Immortals, in Persian history, core troops in the Achaemenian army, so named because their number of 10,000 was immediately reestablished after every loss. Under the direct leadership of the hazarapat, or commander in chief, the Immortals, who formed the king’s personal bodyguard, consisted primarily of Persians but also included Medes and Elamites. They apparently had special privileges, such as being allowed to take concubines and servants along with them on the march. On coloured glazed bricks and carved reliefs found at the Achaemenian capitals, such as the Palace of Artaxerxes at Susa, the Immortals are often represented standing stiffly at attention, each soldier’s wooden spear with its silver blade and pomegranate insignia held upright and resting firmly on his toe. They wore elaborate robes and much gold jewelry. An elite 1,000 of the Immortals were further distinguished by having gold pomegranates on their spears.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...sand-Immortals




[TD="width: 21%"]

Immortals: Greek name for an elite regiment in the ancient Achaemenid empire. In his description of the battle of Thermopylae (480 BCE), the Greek researcher Herodotus mentions a Persian elite corps which he calls the Ten Thousand or the Athanatoi, the 'Immortals'. He describes them as a body of picked Persians under the leadership of Hydarnes, the son of Hydarnes. This corps was known as the Immortals, because it was invariably kept up to strength; if a man was killed or fell sick, the vacancy he left was at once filled, so that the total strength of the corps was never less -and never more- than ten thousand. Of all the troops in Persian army, the native Persians were not only the best but also the most magnificently equipped; their dress and armor I have mentioned already, but I should add that every man glittered with the gold which he carried about his person in unlimited quantity. They were accompanied, moreover, by covered carriages full of their women and servants, all elaborately fitted out. Special food, separate from that of the rest of the army, was brought along for them on dromedaries and mules. (Histories 7.83; tr. Aubrey de Selincourt) As he indicates, Herodotus has already mentioned the Persian equipment: The dress of these troops consisted of the tiara, or soft felt cap, embroidered tunic with sleeves, a coat of mail looking like the scales of a fish, and trousers; for arms they carried light wicker shields, quivers slung below them, short spears, powerful bows with cane arrows, and short swords swinging from belts beside the right thigh. (Histories 7.61; tr. Aubrey de Selincourt) We also learn from Herodotus that this elite corps played an important during the Battle of Thermopylae. The Greeks had blocked a narrow road along the coast and prevented the Persians from invading Greece. However, the Immortals made a detour and were able to attack the Greeks in the rear. They are also mentioned during the second year of the war, in 479 BCE, when they remain in Greece in the army of the Persian commander Mardonius. The big problem with this elite corps is that they are unknown from other sources. (There are, of course, other Greek and Latin texts that mention the Immortals, but they have taken this name for the Persian elite troops from Herodotus and simply mean: the royal guard.) There is ample evidence from Persia - e.g., the Persepolis fortification tablets - but it does not mention a corps of Immortals. Probably, Herodotus' informant has confused the name Anûšiya ('companions') with Anauša ('Immortals'). The historians of Alexander the Great mention another elite regiment, which they call the Apple Bearers. Their spears had a small metal counterweight to balance the heavy point. Because this counterweight resembled an apple, they received their remarkable surname. Several scholars believe they are identical to the Immortals.

[/TD]


http://www.livius.org/ia-in/immortals/immortals.html






It also seems as if the Immoratls were not used as a military unit at the time that Rome II is set in. But that.

There is some information about their apperance in the sources mentioned above. And I also found this very informative:

His clothes in this picture were used in combat, he wore completely different clothes when he acted as the bodyguard of the king. That type of clothing is more ceremonial and is normally seen on sculptures in Persepolis. The ceremonial clothing was of course more subtle, but less practical on the battlefield. One of the main weapons of an Immortal were the short bow which was of little use against the heavy armoured Greek hoplites. His other main weapon was quite a short spear with an iron point and a silver counterbalance (the officers had a golden counterbalance). A short sword, or a big dagger, completed the weaponry of an Immortal.

A corset with metal plates is worn under his tunic to offer some protection. Compared to the elite of the Greek forces was he hardly armoured. In his left hand he is holding the gerron: a traditional shield made of wicker and leather. This shield gave him enough protection against arrows, but it certainly could not stop a well aimed thrust of a spear of a Greek hoplite while the Greek hoplon could stop such an attack. On his head he is wearing the tiara: a soft cap made of fabric which he could pull down over his face when he marched through a desert. His loose tunic is richly decorated with embroidery and was often painted in purple, blue, yellow, or white.
In spite of his courage was even the Immortal inferior to a Greek hoplite on the battlefield. The obsolete shield, the lack of greaves and helmet, and the fact that his only advantage, the bow, was useless against the Greek armoured hoplites made the Immortals of less strong than the hoplite. He was a professional soldier just like the Spartans, but the Persian army did not use a tactic which could stop the phalanx. Nevertheless were the Immortals extremely important on the battlefield, and during the battle of Plataea they only retreated after their leader Mardonius was killed. A reason for his inferior equipment might have been his value within the Persian armies which mostly depended on huge amounts of cavalry and archers. Later on the Persian infantry started to use the Greek hoplon and short sword, but they still hardly used any armour most of the time.
Of course were there more types of infantry in the Persian army. Many vanquished people from many different places were forced to fight in the Persian warmachine, and that explains the diversity of the Persian army. Besides their inferior equipment was this also a big disadvantage while fighting the Greeks. The Persians did not form an unity, they did not fight in groups like a phalanx. On top of that fought they in a strange land. The Greeks knew the advantages and the disadvantages of the terrain, and they fought for their homeland... they had a much higher moral.

http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsar.../p_immort.html

To know more about their apperance I actualy even took a quick look at that "TV show" Deadlies Warrior, which is the worst thing to be broadcasted on TV after Sons of Anarchy.

They had this picture representing what a soldier would have looked like:



the "deadliest warrior wiki" also offered some information to armor and weapons:

The Persian Immortals wore a corset of overlapping bronze scales underneath their robes (though in Deadliest Warrior the Immortal is shown wearing it outside of his robes). The show proved that the armor can protect the Immortal, but will break or fall apart if it recieves heavy damage. They carried a wicker shield known as a gerron, though they adopted the Greek aspis during the Greco-Persian Wars after realizing that it offered far greater protection against the Greeks' weapons.

The Sagaris was a weapon similar to a War Hammer or a small battle-axe. It was the Close-Range weapon of the Persian Immortal.

It also mentions a special unit on chariots.

http://deadliestwarrior.wikia.com/wiki/Persian_Immortal

Yet I dont eally take the information from this show that much serious since it is nothing but history channel style white trash entertainment crap.

Concerning a picture search, these are the pics I thought being worth showing:

Sassanian Persian Savaran Cataphract Armor:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Achaemenian Elite Persian Immortal Heavy Armor

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Achaemenian Elite Persian Immortal

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Achaemenid Persian Immortal

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.radpour.com/armor

This site also offers various picks and information yet I was slightly too lazy to post all those pics:

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/history/...ation-persia1/


This pic is from Wikipedia and shows actors dressed as immortals at the 2500 years aniversery celebration of the Persian empire (the last Iranian Shah loved to mystify and theatricaly show himself with ancient Persian stuff)




In conclusion, nothing really shows that the image of the black dressed trooper from the 300 movie is in any way correct.
What I did read was non the less really interesting.
Basic soldiers wearing blue clothes and gold and armed with axes and/or spears.
A unit on chariots wearing blue clothes.
An elite unite with pikes that have silver "apples" as a counterweight wearing blue clothes.
An elite unit with spears that have silver spearheads wearing golden clothes.
And elite troop guarding royalty with even more lavish golden clothes and spears that have golden spearheads.

Apparently, basic immortal troops wore blue and the elites wore golden clothes, yet other information states that what the immortals wore in battle differenciates alot from what they wore during parades, on guard or other.

I hope this was informative and that despite my half assed research this has been an interesting read for you, maybe you may aswell have something to add.

It would be great if someone would use this information to create a unit pack.

I also want to make it very clear, that I am not trying to in anyway critizise unit packs which show the immortals in the style of the 300 movie.

[Dago Red]

Nice read. The Immortals from 300 are intolerable, as is that joke of a movie which keeps passing for some kind of macho historical adventure when it's really the girliest romp ever put to film. Or HD video.

[Bohannan]

Don't forget this guy, no way on earth he was who he claimed to be.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Kraut and Tea]

Nice read. The Immortals from 300 are intolerable, as is that joke of a movie which keeps passing for some kind of macho historical adventure when it's really the girliest romp ever put to film. Or HD video.

I couldnt agree more. Slave army?????? The Persians despised slavery and were a very civilised and open culture.

And the Spartans, a completly overgloryfied bunch.

[Red River]

looks like they got one thing right about them is the armor.. basically, they are just companions and the immortals is just a mistranslation...

[RedGuard]

I couldnt agree more. Slave army?????? The Persians despised slavery and were a very civilised and open culture.

And the Spartans, a completly overgloryfied bunch.

im not quite sure what to make of this thread. I thought it was common knowledge to anyone with half a brain that the immortals were not really zombified katana wielding ninjas

thanks for sharing though, when people ask me how persians looked historically i point them to the Oliver stone movie Alexander

[Aismov]

One thing to remember is to take Herodotus and any ancient author with a grain of salt vis-a-vis modern versus ancient perceptions of wealth. When someone is said to have been "covered in gold" don't have pictures of Mr. T floating around in your mind. This was thoroughly a subsistence society where simply surviving was a struggle for most people (think modern day rural Afghanistan but only worse... mud huts, few if any personal belongings, barely the bare essentials, etc.)

When a warrior was considered to be "wealthy" don't immediately think gleaming metal armor from head to toe. Metal was expensive to collect, refine, and forge in any quantity. The same thing for linens, leather, and just about any product you can think of. There is a reason why ancient Egyptians were paid a daily "salary" consisting of bread and bear, why they could only afford a simple loin cloth, never had any shoes, and slept on the floor without any mattress in one room mud huts...

So the immortals were likely just the same looking like the regular Persian troops but better equipped. Whereas most soldiers had a wicker shield and a stick with a pointed metal tip on it (metal is expensive, remember). The immortals likely had a better shield, possible lined with bronze, likely had a sword (that expensive metal again), maybe had more colorful clothing to show their outward status and wealth (dyes... again very expensive; that's why Egyptians always are shown wearing white), and maybe would have a few small pieces of gold jewelery to again show their status.

Incidentally, this access to resources is also the likely reason why Rome became so successful, and also why it fell. I don't think its a coincidence that an army which was able to equip its solders as standard with a heavy duty shield, a iron sword, and some modicum of metal armor was able to conquer the known world full of enemies with spears, wooden shields, and little to know personal body armor. I also think it is not surprising that the supremacy of Rome began to ebb away when their enemies began to field these same weapons in large numbers and the Romans were unable to adapt and shift away from their infantry-centric form of warfare to the prevailing cavalry warfare that was beginning at that time.

[Maklodes]

In spite of his courage was even the Immortal inferior to a Greek hoplite on the battlefield. The obsolete shield, the lack of greaves and helmet, and the fact that his only advantage, the bow, was useless against the Greek armoured hoplites made the Immortals of less strong than the hoplite. He was a professional soldier just like the Spartans, but the Persian army did not use a tactic which could stop the phalanx. Nevertheless were the Immortals extremely important on the battlefield, and during the battle of Plataea they only retreated after their leader Mardonius was killed. A reason for his inferior equipment might have been his value within the Persian armies which mostly depended on huge amounts of cavalry and archers. Later on the Persian infantry started to use the Greek hoplon and short sword, but they still hardly used any armour most of the time.

I don't really buy this. It really depended on circumstances. In a case where the geography prevents the Persians from having the mobility to conduct skirmish warfare, such as Marathon or Plataea, the Greek hoplite was superior to the Persian archer -- or even, to a less extent, the Persian immortal. (The common Persian sparabara was, I'd say, inferior to the Hoplite all-around. Immortals seem like a sort of archer/sparabara hybrid.) On the level terrain, though, I doubt the Greek phalanx would seem so immune to archers. The Battles of Aegitium and and Sphacteria showed Athenian and Spartan hoplites, respectively, to be defeatable at the hands of light missile troops like peltasts and archers, so long as the light forces can stay out of range. Shields and armor can keep the hoplites alive for a while, but that's not enough to win.

[donkixot]

Very interesting

[Buddha]

Please keep in perspective that the movie 300 was not intended to show a historically accurate depiction of the battle of Thermopylae. 300 was an adaptation of a COMIC BOOK by Frank Miller.
The movie is NOT historical fiction. It is a historical FANTASY epic. If a viewer takes it as anything other than fantasy, then that's on the viewer, not the producers/marketers of the film.

Of course the Immortals didn't wear black. You have any idea how hot it gets out in those middle eastern deserts?
Can you imagine marching around for weeks and weeks out there dressed all in black? People would die of heat stroke.

[Buddha]

I don't really buy this. It really depended on circumstances. In a case where the geography prevents the Persians from having the mobility to conduct skirmish warfare, such as Marathon or Plataea, the Greek hoplite was superior to the Persian archer -- or even, to a less extent, the Persian immortal. (The common Persian sparabara was, I'd say, inferior to the Hoplite all-around. Immortals seem like a sort of archer/sparabara hybrid.) On the level terrain, though, I doubt the Greek phalanx would seem so immune to archers. The Battles of Aegitium and and Sphacteria showed Athenian and Spartan hoplites, respectively, to be defeatable at the hands of light missile troops like peltasts and archers, so long as the light forces can stay out of range. Shields and armor can keep the hoplites alive for a while, but that's not enough to win.

Yes, this is true. One of the big keys to victory for the Greeks over the Persian empire was the fact that the Persian military was equipped and trained for middle eastern desert warfare. When they ran into Greek armies that were composed of lots and lots of heavy infantry (hoplites) that were trained and equipped to fight in the rocky, mountainous terrain of Greece (also, the terrain nullified the strength of Persia's forces, their famed cavalry), things didn't go so well for the Persians. Another way to look at it is, if Greece was a big, wide open desert like modern day Iran, then the Greeks would have lost pretty badly. Can you imagine marching around a super hot desert with all the heavy arms and armor of the Greeks? It would really, really suck. Plus, you'd be so slow compared to the enemy. There's a good reason why the middle eastern cultures favored lighter arms and armor. Because speed wins in the deserts and the steppes. So you lighten up. When an army built for speed has to slow down in mountainous terrain and slog it out for 12 rounds against super heavy infantry, of course they're going to lose.

When Alexander began his conquests, he started out with a Hellenistic army, augmented by the finest cavalry the Greek speaking peoples had ever produced. But, the further and further east he went, the more and more his army resembled an eastern army (more cavalry, more light troops, less heavy infantry). Part of Alexander's genius was adaptability. He didn't give a rat's ass about military tradition and configured and reconfigured his army to be suitable to changing circumstances.

A hoplite army is really only good in terrain like Greece's.

[Toho]

I don't really buy this. It really depended on circumstances. In a case where the geography prevents the Persians from having the mobility to conduct skirmish warfare, such as Marathon or Plataea, the Greek hoplite was superior to the Persian archer -- or even, to a less extent, the Persian immortal. (The common Persian sparabara was, I'd say, inferior to the Hoplite all-around. Immortals seem like a sort of archer/sparabara hybrid.) On the level terrain, though, I doubt the Greek phalanx would seem so immune to archers. The Battles of Aegitium and and Sphacteria showed Athenian and Spartan hoplites, respectively, to be defeatable at the hands of light missile troops like peltasts and archers, so long as the light forces can stay out of range. Shields and armor can keep the hoplites alive for a while, but that's not enough to win.

the greeks excelled at close quarter combat.
I guess the reason Alexander is so famous is not because he defeated a superior numbered foe (peasants with sticks are hardly a worth adversary) but they beat the Persians at their own open terrain.
however we cant exactly say Darius 3rd was not exactly a great general/king either.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Please keep in perspective that the movie 300 was not intended to show a historically accurate depiction of the battle of Thermopylae. 300 was an adaptation of a COMIC BOOK by Frank Miller.
The movie is NOT historical fiction. It is a historical FANTASY epic. If a viewer takes it as anything other than fantasy, then that's on the viewer, not the producers/marketers of the film.

Of course the Immortals didn't wear black. You have any idea how hot it gets out in those middle eastern deserts?
Can you imagine marching around for weeks and weeks out there dressed all in black? People would die of heat stroke.

Wait.......what? How could they die? I don't understand. I thought they were "Immortals"? As to the subject though, I think its interesting that for the most part, for ALL of the armies they never truly were matched very well with the men to the left and right of them except by pure luck most of the time. Im sure there were often times that whole regiments or groups of soldiers would look very similar to the next man if they came from the same village-city-hamlet, but the matching of red, blue, yellow, ect, from say Northern Italy to Southern Italy or any other regions East-West-South-North villages-cities dyes would be extremely rare, and for the most part its all done in games, movies, TV shows as an aesthetic appeal to the viewers eyes and romantic flavoring.

[Aismov]

Part of Alexander's genius was adaptability. He didn't give a rat's ass about military tradition and configured and reconfigured his army to be suitable to changing circumstances.

Yep, 100% agree. Though it nearly caused a mutiny in India!

[Buddha]

Yep, 100% agree. Though it nearly caused a mutiny in India!

Yeah, that can be a problem with genius sometimes. The non-geniuses around you don't get you and threaten you with mutiny.

In any case, Alexander avoided mutiny by caving in to his generals' demands by cancelling his "conquer the entire world" tour and deciding to march back home.

[Maklodes]

Yes, this is true. One of the big keys to victory for the Greeks over the Persian empire was the fact that the Persian military was equipped and trained for middle eastern desert warfare. When they ran into Greek armies that were composed of lots and lots of heavy infantry (hoplites) that were trained and equipped to fight in the rocky, mountainous terrain of Greece (also, the terrain nullified the strength of Persia's forces, their famed cavalry), things didn't go so well for the Persians.

In the case of Plataea and Marathon, I'd say being against the shore was the biggest factor preventing escape. Actually, while mountainous terrain did inhibit Persian cavalry, I think an archery-oriented light infantry combat style is actually better suited for combat on uneven ground than a heavy infantry phalanx combat style, unless the ground was actually impassable and thus restricted the combat to, say, a narrow defile.

Although phalanxes were better suited to rough ground than cavalry, it still interfered with their formations and technique of presenting a continuous shield wall. By contrast, archers really don't need a formation at all (in fact, when fighting against other archers, they avoid being too close). Crete, famed as the Hellenic world's best source of archers, is pretty mountainous (I even recall some claims attributing the Cretan's archery tradition to the mountainous terrain, although I can't recall or find the source). Aetolia was pretty mountainous too -- and they didn't use many archers, but they had a similar concept of using light skirmish troops (peltasts).

However, the Greeks knew their land better than the Persians, so even though the Persian foot archer was arguably even better suited to Greece's mountainous terrain than the Greek hoplite, they were often able to pick battlefields where they were nonetheless at an advantage.

I also think it is not surprising that the supremacy of Rome began to ebb away when their enemies began to field these same weapons in large numbers and the Romans were unable to adapt and shift away from their infantry-centric form of warfare to the prevailing cavalry warfare that was beginning at that time.

I'm skeptical about that. For one thing, my understanding is that Rome did become much more cavalry-oriented in late antiquity -- probably as much or more so than many of the enemies which eventually dismembered the west like the Goths and Lombards. Belisarius's bucellarii were mostly horse archers. Second, some of the enemies that successfully took Roman lands, either from the Romans themselves or from older barbarian conquerors, were very infantry-heavy, such as the Franks and the Saxons. Probably the Persians and Huns were even more cavalry-oriented than the Romans -- but I wouldn't say that Rome's poor performance and loss of territory had any particular pattern of infantry obsolescence. If that were the case, one would expect, say, the cavalry powers of the age like the Huns and Persians to do best, defeating enemies with a mix of infantry and cavalry like the Romans and Goths, and mixed forces like the Romans and Goths would in turn beat infantry-oriented powers like the Franks or Saxons. I don't think that's how it turned out.

[Kraxis]

however we cant exactly say Darius 3rd was not exactly a great general/king either.

I'll assume this was intended to mean that Darius was a pretty poor commander, right?

Well, he wasn't actually. He lost, and lost badly, but not because he was particularly bad (or didn't listen to brighter generals, or was fooled by stupid generals or any such).
At Issus he deployed correctly. He knew that the Macedonians were superior in infantry, so he deployed his forces behind an embankment by a river, with one flank covered by rough terrain. And he pooled his quality cavalry in the one position where Alexander was supposed to do the same. The flat and easily covered terrain downriver. Had Alexander done that, he would have lost his Companions. Perhaps they would have won the cavalry battle, but their losses would have been crippling and the campaign would have ended there. As it was the Macedonians ambushed the Persian cavalry, which let them freely engage the supporting infantry without fear of strike in the rear or flank, and meanwhile moved their own cavalry around the other flank alongside the Hypaspists. This was unexpected because it was not supposed to be doable under the watchful eyes of the Persian archers (the complete lack of Persian cavalry on their left flank supports the notion that they expected that it would be impossible to carry out successfully).
But still, had the Persians not been impetuous and charged ahead, their cavalry could have swung around and hit the Companions in the flank and ended the battle.
The dispositions at Issus were correct, if a bit unimaginative. But hey, if that counts as bad, then Roman History wants a word with you.

At Gaugamela Darius had clearly learned a thing or two. Instead of fighting in a confined space, it could barely get any more open. To break the dense blocks of infantry elephants and chariots were employed. Unfortunately they were expertly countered (a bit of a surprise given the lacks of either weapon in Europe at the time). Also this time the Companions had to fight the enemy head on, while lighter Persian cavalry swung around the other flank, and yet some headed for the Macedonian camp. The latter is an oft overlooked aspect. Generally taking a camp would spell doom for the enemy army, and as such it was a much feared result. Thus presumably the Macedonians would be quite demoralised at such an event. As it was, they held firm despite both that and intense pressure. At least until Alexander and the Companions could return and finish the battle. That the left flank would probably have broken if not for that return is just all the more indication that both generals did well there.
Again the Persian dispositions were correct. Match the movements of the enemy's elite, disrupt his infantry and flank his weak side. Unfortunately all of this was countered, and in fact at least partially foreseen.

In essence it was a quite capable general versus a rather brilliant one. One did the right thing, the other did the right thing in relation to what the first one did (a much harder thing to do when you have to plan ahead).

[Buddha]

In the case of Plataea and Marathon, I'd say being against the shore was the biggest factor preventing escape. Actually, while mountainous terrain did inhibit Persian cavalry, I think an archery-oriented light infantry combat style is actually better suited for combat on uneven ground than a heavy infantry phalanx combat style, unless the ground was actually impassable and thus restricted the combat to, say, a narrow defile.

Although phalanxes were better suited to rough ground than cavalry, it still interfered with their formations and technique of presenting a continuous shield wall. By contrast, archers really don't need a formation at all (in fact, when fighting against other archers, they avoid being too close). Crete, famed as the Hellenic world's best source of archers, is pretty mountainous (I even recall some claims attributing the Cretan's archery tradition to the mountainous terrain, although I can't recall or find the source). Aetolia was pretty mountainous too -- and they didn't use many archers, but they had a similar concept of using light skirmish troops (peltasts).

However, the Greeks knew their land better than the Persians, so even though the Persian foot archer was arguably even better suited to Greece's mountainous terrain than the Greek hoplite, they were often able to pick battlefields where they were nonetheless at an advantage.

Yes, Plataea and Marathon were special cases and not representative of your typical classical era battle.

One thing I recall reading (or maybe watching on History channel) was that the Persians used different bows than the Europeans.
Basically, the Persian bow was smaller, made out of different wood, and had a lot less penetrating power, and it was apparently ineffective vs. Greek armor and shields.
So, I'm not so sure that an archer heavy Persian army would overmatch a traditional Greek phalanx on Greek territory.
Maybe, if they had Cretan bows, it would have been a different story. But I don't even think that the Cretan bow was anywhere near as effective as say, the Welsh longbow in terms of penetrating power.

Yes, you are right in that phalanxes aren't so great on rocky terrain and they preferred to fight on a level field.
But they didn't fight on really, really big fields. Greek vs. Greek battles were generally not large scale battles like Alexander's battles in Asia or Roman battles vs. Hannibal.
Greece doesn't have a lot of vast, wide open spaces. The kind of terrain where big cavalry battles can happen.
There's a reason why the Greeks never developed a noteworthy cavalry. Simply not enough pasture lands.
You have to travel north towards Thessaly and Macedonia for that.
And even if rocky terrain messes up phalanx formation, you can kill have a big mass of heavily armored and shielded dudes hacking away at each other with their short swords.

The ancient Greeks were pretty smart people. If archery was really superior on Greek terrain,
then you'd think that the Greek armies would have evolved to be archery dominant like the Persians, yet that never really happened.
There must be good reasons for that. It probably had a lot to do with the quality of hoplite armor and shields.
And don't forget that sooner or later, the heavy infantry will close distance with the lightly armored ranged troops, and then the slaughter would begin.
If anything, the Greeks used peltasts and slingers more than they used archers as far as their light troops went.

[Octavius Vatco]

I taketh OP that you have not played or perhaps introduced to the "Rise of Persia" Rome Total War mod. The Immortals are the Anusiya, the most professional troops of the Ancient Persian Army. The Fabled Ten Thousand.

As for the 300, yes it was a terrible bull ......... of a movie except for the hoplite phalanx representation IMO.

One thing I recall reading (or maybe watching on History channel) was that the Persians used different bows than the Europeans.
Basically, the Persian bow was smaller, made out of different wood, and had a lot less penetrating power, and it was apparently ineffective vs. Greek armor and shields.
So, I'm not so sure that an archer heavy Persian army would overmatch a traditional Greek phalanx on Greek territory.
Maybe, if they had Cretan bows, it would have been a different story. But I don't even think that the Cretan bow was anywhere near as effective as say, the Welsh longbow in terms of penetrating power.

I don't think the greek's bows were stronger than the persian's composite bows there.

[Celtoi]

I hope this was informative and that despite my half assed research this has been an interesting read for you, maybe you may aswell have something to add.

Great reading by bringing al this info together at one spot....(+rep.)