Worst (sizeable) military of the ancient era?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

As the name says, which army would you nominate for the title?

My choice? The two feudal, caste based conscript armies of the Achaemenids and Sassanids. These were based along a small core of medicore quality cavalry from the nobility and their retainers, and a huge mob of untrained, unarmored and sometimes unarmed 'troops' with little fighting ability. The most inefficient system conceivable, since it would plagued by logistical problems and extremely heavy casualties even in case of success. I cannot even fathom why spend all the time and money in bringing the mob together when that could be used for acquiring a smaller number trained and decently armed troops.

[asianboy]

I agree with you about the Achaemenid Empire Army.They got pwned by the (initially small) Macedonian Kingdom.

However, I disagree with you on the Sassanids since they did win some epic battles against the Romans.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

However, I disagree with you on the Sassanids since they did win some epic battles against the Romans.

Name one.

[{Augustus}]

Name one.

Carrhae and the fact that the romans never were able to conquer them

[Knonfoda]

That's a hard question to answer, how would we define 'worst'?

This will probably prove to be a controversial choice, but I am going with the Greeks for the single reason that they failed to unite and exploit their true potential, remaining forever at each other's throats and in turn being dominated by those that weren't necessarily more powerful than themselves, but that wielded the power they had much better, such as the Macedonians and eventually the Romans.

As for your choice of the Sassanids, I find that strange. There was a reason Rome didn't expand east much, both during the Parthian and Sassanid dynasties.

However, I disagree with you on the Sassanids since they did win some epic battles against the Romans.

Name one.

Battle of Misiche, 244 A.D - Sassanid Victory (Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae, Zosimus, Nova Historiae)

Battle of Barbalissos, 253 A.D - Decisive Sassanid Victory (Kaveh Farroukh - Sassanid Heavy Cavalry - there is some contention/debate as to whether this battle actually occurred)

Battle of Edessa, 259 A.D - Probably the most humiliating/crushing Roman defeat at the hands of the Sassanids. Decisive Sassanid Victory, death of estimated 40,000 troops and the capture of Emperor Valerian (Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum, V and Zosimus, New History, i)

Siege of Amida, 359 A.D - Sassanid Victory (Ammianus Marcellinus)

Battle of Samarra - 363 A.D - Tactical Roman Victory, but pretty much a total catastrophe for the Roman Empire. Julian the Apostate was killed, the remaining army surrounded, and Jovian was forced to accept a humiliating treaty with the Sassanids, ceding a number of fortresses and provinces on the frontier back to the Sassanids. (Libanius, Epistolae - Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae)

Battle of Antioch, 613 A.D (East Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire) - Sassanid Victory (Foss, Clive 1975 - The Persians in Asia Minor and the End of Antiquity)

Siege of Jerusalem, 614 A.D - Decisive Sassanid Victory, large massacre of Christian population. (Antiochus Strategos)

Sassanid Invasion of Asia Minor, 615 A.D - Sassanids invaded Asia Minor (Anatolia, now Turkey) reaching as far as Chalcedon, on the very gates of Constantinople itself. Again, we can surmise that for a Sassanid incursion to go this far, Rome/Byzantine must have lost a significant number of battles. (James Howard-Johnston, (2006) East Rome, Persian Sassanid at the end of antiquity)

Sassanid Conquest of Egypt, 618-621 A.D is another interesting example of a campaign where the Sassanids wrested control of the entire province of Aegyptus from Roman control. Not many details of the battles are known, but to lose an entire province of this strategic importance must have meant Rome/Byzantine Empire must have lost a lot of battles in the process. (James Howard-Johnston (2006) East Rome, Sassanian Persia at the end of antiquity)

[asianboy]

That's a hard question to answer, how would we define 'worst'?

This will probably prove to be a controversial choice, but I am going with the Greeks for the single reason that they failed to unite and exploit their true potential, remaining forever at each other's throats and in turn being dominated by those that weren't necessarily more powerful than themselves, but that wielded the power they had much better, such as the Macedonians and eventually the Romans.

As for your choice of the Sassanids, I find that strange. There was a reason Rome didn't expand east much, both during the Parthian and Sassanid dynasties.






Battle of Misiche, 244 A.D - Sassanid Victory (Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae, Zosimus, Nova Historiae)

Battle of Barbalissos, 253 A.D - Decisive Sassanid Victory (Kaveh Farroukh - Sassanid Heavy Cavalry - there is some contention/debate as to whether this battle actually occurred)

Battle of Edessa, 259 A.D - Probably the most humiliating/crushing Roman defeat at the hands of the Sassanids. Decisive Sassanid Victory, death of estimated 40,000 troops and the capture of Emperor Valerian (Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum, V and Zosimus, New History, i)

Siege of Amida, 359 A.D - Sassanid Victory (Ammianus Marcellinus)

Battle of Samarra - 363 A.D - Tactical Roman Victory, but pretty much a total catastrophe for the Roman Empire. Julian the Apostate was killed, the remaining army surrounded, and Jovian was forced to accept a humiliating treaty with the Sassanids, ceding a number of fortresses and provinces on the frontier back to the Sassanids. (Libanius, Epistolae - Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae)

Battle of Antioch, 613 A.D (East Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire) - Sassanid Victory (Foss, Clive 1975 - The Persians in Asia Minor and the End of Antiquity)

Siege of Jerusalem, 614 A.D - Decisive Sassanid Victory, large massacre of Christian population. (Antiochus Strategos)

Sassanid Invasion of Asia Minor, 615 A.D - Sassanids invaded Asia Minor (Anatolia, now Turkey) reaching as far as Chalcedon, on the very gates of Constantinople itself. Again, we can surmise that for a Sassanid incursion to go this far, Rome/Byzantine must have lost a significant number of battles. (James Howard-Johnston, (2006) East Rome, Persian Sassanid at the end of antiquity)

Sassanid Conquest of Egypt, 618-621 A.D is another interesting example of a campaign where the Sassanids wrested control of the entire province of Aegyptus from Roman control. Not many details of the battles are known, but to lose an entire province of this strategic importance must have meant Rome/Byzantine Empire must have lost a lot of battles in the process. (James Howard-Johnston (2006) East Rome, Sassanian Persia at the end of antiquity)

Thank you for listing the battles.
+rep for you

[The Stig]

The Romans by far. Those guys couldn't win anything

[Hopit]

Epirus
They win and lose at the same time
how can someone suck so much

[TheJim]

Epirus
They win and lose at the same time
how can someone suck so much

Well Pyrrhus defeated the Romans twice and drew once (major battles anyway) and they had much more success than other diadochi armies, so I don't see where on earth you got the idea that they "suck" from. Romans aren't exactly a pushover.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Well Pyrrhus defeated the Romans twice and drew once (major battles anyway) and they had much more success than other diadochi armies, so I don't see where on earth you got the idea that they "suck" from. Romans aren't exactly a pushover.

He was being sarcastic.

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

^
Their army was identical to the Macedonians', though. They chose the wrong opponent: Rome had a huge source of manpower like no other nation in the area.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I said Sassanids, not ing Arsacids.

[The_Blacksmith]

the roman army from the "Polybian era" not only did they have to buy their own weapons, they had to own land aswell, which is a huge handicap...

and its been mentioned before, the romans had huuuge amounts of manpower...

[TheJim]

the roman army from the "Polybian era" not only did they have to buy their own weapons, they had to own land aswell, which is a huge handicap...

and its been mentioned before, the romans had huuuge amounts of manpower...

They were still well equipped, decently trained and professional. They displayed the ability to perform complex tactical maneouvres and were very disciplined and reliable troops. Certainly enough to conquer Africa, most of Iberia, Makedonia and Syria, so definitely not the worst.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

So the Sassanids won a staggering seven times in 400 years? What a glorious achievement! Now look at Sassanid defeats at Roman hands.

[Knonfoda]

That's not the point. At the end of the day the Romans were unable to capitalise on their victories over the Sassanids, and the Parthians before that.

The point is the Persians were the largest, most organised, well funded and militarily able enemy the Romans faced over those four hundred years.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

But that does not make their army any more efficient or powerful. It was the Romans' inability to exploit their crushing victories that failed them in the end, not any Sassanid action.

The campaigns of the early 7th century, btw, had no battles in them. The invasion of Anatolia was simply passing through the undefended parts of it, and the invasion of Egypt was bloodless (apart from the tens of thousands of massacred civilians, of course). Yeah, sure, Alexandria or some other city tried to resist but a traitor opened the gates on the third day of the siege.

[TheJim]

Besides the point. You said "Name one". He named seven. He proved you wrong on that count (that is not to say the Sassanid army itself was any good) and the history does suggest that although individually their armies were poor, the sheer size of their military gave them enough power projection to slowly eat away at the Eastern Empire.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Besides the point. You said "Name one". He named seven. He proved you wrong on that count (that is not to say the Sassanid army itself was any good) and the history does suggest that although individually their armies were poor, the sheer size of their military gave them enough power projection to slowly eat away at the Eastern Empire.

Too bad they had none of those things, since the Romans could still field more men. The Romans could field more professionals than the Persians could conscripted serfs - that says something about the efficiency of the Persians. Although the Romans had the most advanced logistics in the world, so it's not fair to compare a feudal backwater with them.

[TheJim]

Too bad they had none of those things, since the Romans could still field more men. The Romans could field more professionals than the Persians could conscripted serfs - that says something about the efficiency of the Persians. Although the Romans had the most advanced logistics in the world, so it's not fair to compare a feudal backwater with them.

Nothing you say matters when you look at what actually literally happened in history - that the Romans lost land to the Sassanids. That happened, and no matter how sound your argument, it won't change the fact that that's what happened.