Conan
01-22-2011, 03:30
Hi guys,
I know this is related to outside EB's time frame.
Just a question I've had wondering around my head for a while really...
It does appear the hoplite was an effective form of infantry during the classical period but since the Persians did encounter them on numerous occasions how come they never adapted their own infantry or a section of their army to match hoplite tactics + equipment?
I'm sure the Empire possessed the finances + resources to do this and with access to mercenary hoplites, the people with the skills and knowledge to train their soldiers how to fight as a hoplite phalanx.
The only reasons that I could think of as to why not are -
1. The large amount of available mercenary hoplites simply made it just easier and cheaper to simply recruit the mercenaries.
2. Or the holpite wasn't as effective against the Persian army as we may have been lead to believe + the defeats of the Persian armies during the Greeco-Persian wars was down more to luck, tactics and terrain more suitable to hoplite warfare then the typical Persian cavalry/light infantry combo. I'm pretty sure there were more occasion that the Greek hoplite phalanx was defeated by the Persian army + tactics than visa versa...
Anyone else agree? Or have a different view?
I know this is related to outside EB's time frame.
Just a question I've had wondering around my head for a while really...
It does appear the hoplite was an effective form of infantry during the classical period but since the Persians did encounter them on numerous occasions how come they never adapted their own infantry or a section of their army to match hoplite tactics + equipment?
I'm sure the Empire possessed the finances + resources to do this and with access to mercenary hoplites, the people with the skills and knowledge to train their soldiers how to fight as a hoplite phalanx.
The only reasons that I could think of as to why not are -
1. The large amount of available mercenary hoplites simply made it just easier and cheaper to simply recruit the mercenaries.
2. Or the holpite wasn't as effective against the Persian army as we may have been lead to believe + the defeats of the Persian armies during the Greeco-Persian wars was down more to luck, tactics and terrain more suitable to hoplite warfare then the typical Persian cavalry/light infantry combo. I'm pretty sure there were more occasion that the Greek hoplite phalanx was defeated by the Persian army + tactics than visa versa...
Anyone else agree? Or have a different view?