Assyrians/Babylonians vs Greeks (alternative history)

[Rex_Pelasgorum]

What do you think would have happened in history if , let`s say, Nabonidus would have been a great king and he would have defeated Cyrus and going on to invade Greece ?

What would have happened if instead of Darius and Xerxes invasion, the Greeks would have faced a great Babilonian invasion army ?

Unlike the Persians, the babylonians had some nice armoured troops. Also, good swordsmen, armoured axemen, war chariots,, armoured spearmen, professional corps of archers, they where good besiegers (borrowed much tehnique from the Assyrians), where quite inovative in terms of warfare, howewer they did not used to raise armyes from subjected nations, so their numbers could not have been that great.

Who would have won ? How you imagine a Greek phalanx facing the Might of Babylon ?

[Gurkhal]

It's hard to say, due to us using strictly speculations. Yet I think it could've gone either way. Just like the Persian invasion. As I've understood it, the key to the Persians defeat was their navy, and so I think that the invasion by any Mesopotamian power could've gone either way. But then again I'm frankly not experienced enough in the Persian or Babylonian army to make a very good judgment of it.

[Randarkmaan]

You have to remember that the Persians beat the Babylonians pretty badly, and that until the Greco-Persian wars it was thought that they were invincible. The Persians relied on cavalry and archery to win. Archery was not very effective against the hoplites' large bronze shields and to lesser extent their body armour. The advantages of cavalry could be negated by choosing terrain disadventageous to them or by a engaging in close combat with the infantry before the cavalry could engage, as was done at Marathon.

[Rex_Pelasgorum]

Persians beat the Babylonians because the Babylonians where unprepared. Nabonidus was one of the first archeologists in history, but a very poor emperor. During the single battle of the persian conquest of Babylon Nabonidus was still dreaming and relaxing at Tamane...

Hmmm, naval defeats of persians where also important, but we should not forget the fact that most of the persian units used in land battles where tribal levies, armed with nothing more than wicker shields. At Plateea, for example Mardonius had in his army alot of recruited egyptian peasants armed only with knives... what could have these man do against the hoplites ? DIE ~:)

[Tamur]

As Rex Pelasgorum says, the Babylonians at the time of Persian conquest were not much compared to earier. But even at their height, the Babylonians still had to ally themselves with the Medes to take Nineveh. Hands down the Greeks win this one.

If it were between the Assyrians at the height of their power and the Greeks at theirs, that would be a tighter contest.

[Watchman]

At Plateea, for example Mardonius had in his army alot of recruited egyptian peasants armed only with knives... what could have these man do against the hoplites ? DIE ~:)If those weren't a labour force then one has to wonder what the fig they were doing there - Mardonius was given pretty much a free hand in picking the troops he was going to stay behind with, wasn't he ?

It's not like anyone was going to haul a lot of completely useless levies over the distances involved just for fun given the logistical issues to consider, anyway...

[Gurkhal]

As Rex Pelasgorum says, the Babylonians at the time of Persian conquest were not much compared to earier. But even at their height, the Babylonians still had to ally themselves with the Medes to take Nineveh. Hands down the Greeks win this one.

Not sure on this one. What I've read as I've understoo it the Medes pretty much joined the war against the Assyrians when the Babylonians were already on the offensive and striking for the Assyrian heartlands. Although of course they hurried the collapse of the Assyrian empire.

[Watchman]

Didn't the Scythians pitch in as well ?

[Rex_Pelasgorum]

Didn't the Scythians pitch in as well ?

Scythians invaded during the reign of Assurbanipall and devastated the entire Middle East for quite some time.

Before the Scythians invaded, the Assyrians had to deal with the Cimmerians, who have just been pushed out of the steppes by the Scythians.


If those weren't a labour force then one has to wonder what the fig they were doing there - Mardonius was given pretty much a free hand in picking the troops he was going to stay behind with, wasn't he ?
.
But even so, the best of the best from the Persian Army retrated together with Xerxes. Ussualy Oriental armyes are larger then western armyes, but they are larger due to the fact that oriental lords liked sending untrained man and levies to the fight just to make the numbers go higher...


If it were between the Assyrians at the height of their power and the Greeks at theirs, that would be a tighter contest.

I found some data that actually the Egyptians Pharaos invited greek mercenaryes to clear the country from the Assyrians... but unfortunately i found no record of the actual fightings... ~:(

[Gurkhal]

But even so, the best of the best from the Persian Army retrated together with Xerxes. Ussualy Oriental armyes are larger then western armyes, but they are larger due to the fact that oriental lords liked sending untrained man and levies to the fight just to make the numbers go higher...


To me a more plausible answere would be the different military traditions of the areas. The polis have a limited ammount of inhabitants and Greece is covered with mountains. Mesopotamia and Egypt on the other hands are very wealthy, have large populations and also have flat lands. Thus while Greece may favour, for different resons, small elite armies, the Middle East would favour larger armies. Also note that European ancient military tradition have for the most part, to my understanding, favoured the use of melée weapons. While the Near East have a had a tradition in the use of bows and of only light armour due to the climate.

[Watchman]

Scythians invaded during the reign of Assurbanipall and devastated the entire Middle East for quite some time.They also ruled over the Medes - and probably the neighbouring Persians as well - for a while, by what I've read. That'd have made them very natural allies for the Babylonians for ganging up against the floundering Assyria right next door.


But even so, the best of the best from the Persian Army retrated together with Xerxes. Ussualy Oriental armyes are larger then western armyes, but they are larger due to the fact that oriental lords liked sending untrained man and levies to the fight just to make the numbers go higher...While one would certainly imagine Xerxes took the cream-of-the-crop "imperial guard" units like the Immortals with him back home - IIRC he had to go put down some uprising after all - given that Mardonius was nonetheless left with a sizeable force to continue the campaign with one sincerely doubts if he made a particular point of choosing what were essentially noncombatants...

Given that especially after the Persian fleet got wrecked at Salamis an army the size of that one would have been a logistical nightmare to even feed, nevermind in a region as ultimately rather agriculturally poor as Greece, it is hard to see how "effectives" would not have had a clear priority.

Plus the remaining Persian army was in any case a daunting enough opponent that Plataea consisted mostly of the two armies jockeying for position (and the Greeks putting up with intense harassement from the Persian cavalry) until the confused attempt to shift the Greek forces to a better positions overnight made Mardonius (unsuccesfully, as it turned out) press attack - which hardly suggests virtually unarmed peasants being a meaningful portion of the Persian force !

Besides, the Spartans dragged along a big bunch of their helots for no other reason than the fact they didn't dare leave them home while most of the homoioi were away, so...

At least the ancient Mesopotamian city-states did apparently have a habit of getting a lot of men killed in wars largely as a means of getting rid of excess populace, but given the sheer amount of territory the Achaemenids held and how much of it could be colonized by hungry mouths from other parts of the realm I sort of doubt if they had need for such measures.


I found some data that actually the Egyptians Pharaos invited greek mercenaryes to clear the country from the Assyrians... but unfortunately i found no record of the actual fightings...And then the mercs decided they liked the place and lorded over it for a while until the natives had had enough and mobbed them, although the new Pharaoh spared the survivors and formed them into a hereditary professional warrior class for his armies. Not that that seemed to slow the Persians much, mind you, but then they also don't seem to have had great trouble taking over the poleis and kingdoms of Asia Minor either.

But let's face it, Egypt is pretty far from Assyria and the Assyrian empire was past its highwater mark by the time - nevermind having constant trouble in other quarters as well. They never managed to subdue Babylon for good, after all, and the Urartians seem to always have been trouble regardless of repeated Assyrian campaigns against them. Nevermind now assorted troublesome mountain tribes like the Elamites who occasionally came down to raid.