Re: Inferiority of middle eastern militaries in the ancient world?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Montmorency
Then the combined Greek force would have outnumbered the Persians. :shrug:
If by "combined Greek force" you mean pulling all free adult males from every corner of Greece, possibly. If you by it you mean Athenian-Spartan alliance, than most certainly not.
Quote:
You don't address the points I quoted, however. Just give them a glance.
I did. There isn't a single piece of solid evidence there, only general wonderings of "why would they do that if their force was smaller than 100,000" type.
Quote:
Give him credit for his proto-rationalistic approach; at least cut the guy some slack:
That doesn't really change the reality that Herodotus is considered highly unreliable.
Re: Inferiority of middle eastern militaries in the ancient world?
Quote:
If by "combined Greek force" you mean pulling all free adult males from every corner of Greece, possibly. If you by it you mean Athenian-Spartan alliance, than most certainly not.
At Plataea, the Persians would have been outnumbered, counting both hoplites and light troops.
Quote:
I did. There isn't a single piece of solid evidence there, only general wonderings of "why would they do that if their force was smaller than 100,000" type.
So you can't address these concerns.
Which numbers should be rejected and why? Why wouldn't a figure in the vicinity of 200000 be plausible?
Re: Inferiority of middle eastern militaries in the ancient world?
If that is the case, I would suggest sticking with it - since if the Persians were defeated, why is it impossible that they were outnumbered?
That would dismiss their perceived inferiority as a misinterpretation.
Re: Inferiority of middle eastern militaries in the ancient world?
I wasn't relating my posts to the debate over inferiority, which I feel has been dealt with anyway.
Re: Inferiority of middle eastern militaries in the ancient world?
Simple answer, Passion.
The Persians were one of the most organized and advanced empires in the ancient world. My opinion is that they were not inferior. Inferior forces do not establish and maintain empires for long.
The Greeks fought for their freedom during Persian invasion (passion). Freedom above all else is most important to a Hellene, wherever he may live in the world. From passion you get morale. Never underestimate the effect of morale in a fighting army. Modern history example, when the Greeks defended their northern borders against the Italians.
In addition, note, the Greeks were divided during Persian war. Some Greek states supported the Persian effort. In particular in the North. The North was intimidated by the Great number of Persian forces. "This was a mistake of the Persians." Or more accurate "Xerxes". As the North never forgot, hence Alexander conquest etc etc.
Re: Inferiority of middle eastern militaries in the ancient world?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
|Sith|DarthRoach
We all know no middle eastern (more specifically, Persian and the like) army could stand up to the brave Greeks and Romans...
Uhm, that is a fundamentally wrong question because there are many examples of middle eastern / Persian and the like armies standing up to the Greeks and Romans. Just one of many such examples is the battle of Carrhae (Persians vs Romans) - rings a bell ???
When it comes to earlier times and Achaemenid Persia - Persian Empire easily smashed the Ionian Greeks and occupied Asia Minor.
Quote:
From passion you get morale. Never underestimate the effect of morale in a fighting army.
According to Herodotus the Persians did not have inferior morale to the Greeks.
The reason of Greek victories is that heavy infantry using phalanx formation is superior to light infantry & light skirmish cavalry.
Greeks also had better commanders than Persians in battles which they won. I mean Persian commanders sometimes did extremely stupid things (like Darius at Gaugamela sending chariots straight into enemy phalanx or Datis at Marathon charging frontally up the hill).
But by the time of Marathon, the Greek armies were extremely single-tasking - they consisted almost exclusively of heavy infantry. So such a Greek army was good only for defence in terrain easy to defend (such as Greek mountains, hills and mountain passes) - in vast open areas of the East it would be easily outmaneuvered and slaughtered by swift Persian forces with plenty of cavalry and skirmishers.
That disadvantage of Greek armies was later improved by Macedonians - mainly Alexander and his father Philip.
Macedonian armies combined heavy phalanx with heavy shock cavalry (famous Companions) and supporting light troops.
When it comes to bravery Persians were "not a whit inferior to the Greeks" (exact quote from Herodotus). The only difference I can think of is that Persians generally fought for their king - they were loyal to their king. That's why when Darius escaped from the battlefield at Gaugamela - and his soldiers saw this - then they certainly thought "what the heck, we are not going to fight for such a coward and traitor any more".
On the other hand, as Alexander said before the battle, his death would not have so much impact on morale of his men.
That's why Alexander understood that the only way he could won against overwhelming numbers at Gaugamela - was to strike the weakest point of the Persian army - namely, the King of Kings, Darius. Darius escaped the battlefield fearing his own death, and the battle was over.
