Persian Military Power at this time?

[Faeghi]

Greetings,
ROP is interested to see whether the Persian military power was stronger at this time due to the fact that they had Cyrus as their king who gave great moral to his men, would the persian army at this time be stronger or weaker than in the Greco-Persian Wars,
Faeghi

[rez]

the unity of an entire persian blooded army under one banner with one language and a great commander makes it better than a coalition of levy troops surrounding an elite persian core.

In my opinion that is

[Faeghi]

Interesting opinion and i agree, but now how would a Persian Army at this time do against a Athenian Army at this time?

[rez]

ha! here comes the torrent of pro greece ranting against me but i have serious doubts it would be an easy win for the athenians. Persians have proved they can break a phalanx from a frontal assault countless times against the ionians and also at ephesus furthermore when they conquered egypt they defeated almost an entirely greek mercenary army. So greeks are not utterly superior to the persians. At marathon the greeks sent everything they had at a persian raiding forc which was still recovering from two seiges and an island assault at naxos. The persians had barely excpected the athenians to show up. But still a large credit goes to the athenians for the skill and courage they displayed at marathon.

But ask yourself how many soldiers are brave enough to engage a phalanx head on and win without a phalanx of their own? (Romans and persians are the only ones i can think of)

[Hmmm]

ha! here comes the torrent of pro greece ranting against me but i have serious doubts it would be an easy win for the athenians. Persians have proved they can break a phalanx from a frontal assault countless times against the ionians and also at ephesus furthermore when they conquered egypt they defeated almost an entirely greek mercenary army. So greeks are not utterly superior to the persians. At marathon the greeks sent everything they had at a persian raiding forc which was still recovering from two seiges and an island assault at naxos. The persians had barely excpected the athenians to show up. But still a large credit goes to the athenians for the skill and courage they displayed at marathon.

But ask yourself how many soldiers are brave enough to engage a phalanx head on and win without a phalanx of their own? (Romans and persians are the only ones i can think of)

the greeks was superior to the persians! they won against the persians in platea, and in thermopylae they was able to easily hold the persians. The only reason that the persians would be able to win woukld be theyre numbers! ionians was few and just rioted, where would they find any elite soldiers? and remember that the persians was far more than the ionians. And same thing with egypt and the mercenary army there. Numbers always count, if you are not TOTALLY superior to the enemy.

except of that, cavalry does not have big chanses to win against a phalanx and archers will have it hard to kill a heavily armoured enemy with hoplon and cuirass!
And the persian infantry was never so strong... more like levy soldiers...

[Xyston]

The Persian army was better than any Greece army in 500bc, perhaps better than any other army in the world. Why? Well first the persians had superb cavalry units that could fight both in close combat or use the bow. Other than the nomadic peoples in central asia, they were probably the most skilled mounted archers in the world. Persia also had great missile units, something the greeks did not.

[rez]

mounted archers was median more than persian, but i guess they count as the same army

[Faeghi]

We are talking about the Persian Army of nothing but Persians, not a bunch of levies from the empire, we are trying to figure out how strong it was at the TIME of Cyrus.

[Hmmm]

The army at the TIME of Cyrus the great was stronger than the army at the graeco-persian wars, but the greeks was still superior! that is what i meant! The persian infantry was no match for the hoplites, ever!

[rez]

your grasp of history is astounding...

"the greeks was superior to the persians! they won against the persians in platea, and in thermopylae they was able to easily hold the persians. The only reason that the persians would be able to win woukld be theyre numbers!"

This is far from the truth, In the conquest of egypt the egyptians used a massive force of greek mercnaries, who were defeated. The conquest of the ionians in the first place and furthermore crushing every rebellion that rose up must amount to around 20 battles that were won against greeks. The battle of ephesus during the ionian revolt was a pitched battle won by persians. The sacking of etruria and euboea were both seiges won by persians against greeks. Thermopylae itself was a victory. During the march of the ten thousand, pharnabazes led a cavalry attack that decimated the spartan cavalry. The battle of cnidus was won by a persian navy against a SPARTAN navy. Need i go on? or do I need to refute the greek history some more?

If you truly believe the number figures herodotus gives then you need to read outside of greece. Persia was a province far smaller than greece, can you imagine a million men coming from an ara about the size of the pelloponnese?

On top of this the persian army was the ONLY organised army in the world, with complex heraldry, standards and a uniform they were able to communicate superbly on the field. Not to mention the level of military training that would at least come a near enough second to the Spartans. The greeks were'nt superior - they armour and spears were. And even then phalanxes have been routed on head on combat by persians. Other than romans can you name any one else who has done that without a phalanx?

[Hmmm]

now tell me, didnt the greeks sack sardis at the ionean revolt?! the ioneans was never a great military power. The persians did have their numbers, not theyre skill. They was nothing if you compare with spartans, and even if they won at thermoplyae that does not meant anything! They lost thousands, just by figthing 300 spartans and 700 thespians. They didnt even win in a melee combat, they was so afraid of the spartans that they just fired with arrows on them! And persia is a MUCH larger place than greece. The persians did indeed have numbers. A million men would easily be gathered by the persians, because persia was FAR larger than pelloponese. Expect of that, the greek mercenaries at egypt neither meant anything, mercenaries is easy to rout because they only figth for money, not for the glory of theyre nation! Eretria was neither a "great power", it was a city-state figthing the largest empire for its time! I have never said that the persians was not a strong military power, but they was not even close to the greeks!!!

And dont you call sparta for an organised army?! Everyone had the same armour beause the city-state was buying theyre armour. They was trained from childhood to be nothing but soldiers. Dont tell me you dont know that. The persians was never as good to figth as the greeks, how many times do i have to say that?!

And you didnt quote all, about the ioneans, they was just a rebellion, since when can they stand up against a so great nation as the persians?

[Zenith Darksea]

Bear in mind that during the Ionian rebellion, the Athenian supporting troops were very successful and even burned Sardis to the ground, as Hmmm has just said. At Marathon the Athenian phalanx ultimately overcame the Persians (the centre did give way, but this was a deliberate tactic on Miltiades' behalf to envelope the Persians), and of course at Thermopylae and then Plataea the Spartans and allied Greeks gave the Persians a whipping. The fact that Persia never again threatened Greek independence says a lot. True, the traditional pan-Hellenist view as espoused by men such as Isocrates (in which Persian armies were seen as hordes of worthless Asiatics) was inaccurate indeed, but on many occasions the Persian infantry showed themselves to be inferior in training and equipment. At Cunaxa for instance (on Cyrus' Persian expedition against Artaxerxes his brother), the Greeks routed all those who faced them, and Persian cavalry were even repulsed by peltasts (but they did get lucky there).

[rez]

So evry battle i have noted where persians have routed phalanxes from the front are ignored... Great debate. Im not even trying to say that the persian were better than the greeks ( they were certainly more organised) all im saying is that they were not the stereotype you so blindly label them as Hmmm. Zenith you know your stuff this is'nt for you btw. I mean your numbers of thermopylae don' take into account any considerations of greek history. You won't even listen to my words so its fairly pointless but anyone else reading this can hear that the persians never raised a million men, If you believe propaganda written over 2000 years ago you really need to re think your ideas. And when i reffered to persia being smaller than the pelloponesse I mean the province of persia not the empire and NOT modern iran. The province.

I wonder if you've actually read anything on warfare my friend, it make no difference how glorious a nation is - Athens and etruria were probably around equal terms in technology of war. Could you take a lightly armed non phalanx army and storm a city with minor casualties?

And marathon, remember marathon is a battle fought after the persian force had fought in THREE other major engagments all of them sieges. Can you imagine the exhaustion and losses they suffered? s it a wonder they lost without cavalry support?

And for you who believe the spartans are sooooo brave fr fighting to the death. I can plenty of occasions when persians throughout istory have done this. Least of all the sparabara at mycale. Read the accounts. When all their allies fled the persians stayed to fight the greeks untill death.

Don't be a brainwashed historian hmmm read a little, and by read i mean read books detailing both perspectives. Were you arguing for persia and being over zealously biased Id be the first to tell you greek heavy infantry was the best equipped and tactically prepared unit in the world.

[Hmmm]

i never said that the persians was weaklings, in fact they was really good trained. I do believe your word and i am reading ,what you write rez... But the other three battles has already been answered. Mercenaries is always easy to rout since they just figth for money, and rebels is peasants gathered to figth. The persians did indeed not have one million men, in thermopylae i believe at the theory that they had 250 thousand( and that is hard to believe too... ). But the persians did not only get theyre soldiers from persia, but from all of theyre empire. That was not small... And the spartans is not only sooo brave, they was also the best soldiers in the world( in melee combat of course, not as cavalrymen or archers ). Sorry if i have irritated you, that was certainly not my point with all this...

And the persians was more organised, that is true. The greeks was not armoured the same, they buyed theyre armour themselfs, i think you know that. So i dont say that the persians was worthless peasants. You dont conquer the most powerfull empires of you time with weaklings.
well anyway this is indeed a great mod(love the skins)
do i say indeed to often?

[Princeps]

I believe that the Persian army of the time was much more effective. Since the Persian army was diverse in its tactics and well organized. The Hoplite army was mostly an irregular army made of spearmen. Spartan army is an exception, but the Spartans were not really organized either.

Greek Hoplites should be effective but the Persian army should be better. Persians had a standing army, while the Hoplites were an irregular army, and often are over-romanticised. The Greeks should be effective in home.

So, Greeks: better basic infantry, poor archers, and poor cavalry.
Persians: better discipline, not-so-effective infantry, and much better cavalry and good archers.

IMHO, of course.

Oh, nice mod, great skins too.

[Hmmm]

you didnt answer on my last question, do i say indeed to often?
I dont think that persians is going to have the best cavalry if the companions is going to be in the game, but i dont think that they are going to be...

[rez]

Major historians such a richard n frye (proffesor of persian studies at harvard) will tell you that persian cavalry was superior to the companions (Edit: going a bit far, but the principle of the persian cavalry being extremely capable even against companions holds at least). They won't be in the mod as it does'nt cover the period of Macedonia's re organisation militarily. Persian cavalry probably was the best in the civilised world considering their experience, but the scythian tribes always seem to be the best horseman in all the world.

Sorry i sounded irritated in the above post, but im besett daily by greek history and the inevitable bias. It gets to me and i apologise. But think carefully about this - you said a rebel army is one just gathered from men amongst the populace and hastily set to action each equipping themselves as they could afford. This is true - But this is also exactly how the athenian army was equipped and mobilized. And they have a rather shining military reputation. So the fact they are drawn from the people means nothing, all greek armies are excluding sparta.

Secondly Etruria still holds as a good example of Persian prowess against greeks, etruria would not have been vastly inferior to athens as athens had nt yet come into her prime.

Thirdly the prowess of greek mercenaries has been proven a good many times, for instance the greek mercenaries at the grancus fought to the death. So they are not all easy to rout. The concept of routing a phalanx head on with non phalanx troops seems far from easy to me.

And no you don't say indeed too much i think its cool

Also thanks for your support!

[Omid]

Major historians such a richard n frye (proffesor of persian studies at harvard) will tell you that persian cavalry was superior to the companions.

Dear Rez, if you could provide me with some information regarding that I would be most gratefull.

I understand there were bactrian proto-cataphracts.

thanks.

[Hmmm]

np(about irritation) and thanks for the information, it is good to know things like that!

[Mr Jones]

first of all persian infantry is vastly DIFFERENT to greek hoplites. that is not to say inferior. sure, hoplites may be better at head on melee combat, but could they shower their enemy with arrows before a combat? did they have the ability to conduct complex tactical manouvres? i think not. one of the problems of the phalanx is it's inflexibility. the great thing about persian infantry (i am talking about professional infantry here, not levies) is they are highly flexible, capable of both good archery and decent close combat skills. given a good general like cyrus and an army as flexible as the persian one would be VERY hard to beat, even with large numbers of hoplites. i would put my money on cyrus and the persians trouncing most greek forces at this time. i will not repeat all the examples rez and Hmmm hav already stated, but i think, from what they hav said as well, that it is highly likely that cyrus' army was superior to most greek "armies" at the time.