Inferiority of middle eastern militaries in the ancient world?

We all know no middle eastern (more specifically, Persian and the like) army could stand up to the brave Greeks and Romans... But why? They seem to have had inexhaustible manpower, and incredible riches. The same goes on in the medieval era - no matter how many men the Saracens brought, these were mown down by the crusaders and Byzantines.

Is there some inherent technological inferiority in the region compared to the west?:inquisitive:

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... But why? They seem to have had inexhaustible manpower, and incredible riches. The same goes on in the medieval era - no matter how many men the Saracens brought, these were mown down by the crusaders and Byzantines.

Is there some inherent technological inferiority in the region compared to the west?:inquisitive:

---

I am no expert and do not pretend to be, but I will offer what knowledge (hopefully correct) I have gained from my readings.
First of all, I think you are wrong in your assumption about ancient Persian (Achaemenid or Arsacid) armies and the like. While they are often portrayed as poor (at best) soldiers who rely on mass manpower, during many times in the history the Persians were exceptional warriors with lots of exceptional warriors under their command (they were an empire that incorporated a vast array of cultures and people, so their armies were always very diverse with specialized troops who were used to fighting in a variety of terrain types in a variety of styles).
The Achaemenid suffered defeats at the hands of the Greeks because of a number of different factors.
1st of all, and most importantly, often times their soldiers were conquered people without loyalty or a reason to fight for their emporer. If they were more afraid of their enemy than the consequences of disobeying, they would run. (and who could blame them?)
2nd of all, they were fighting exceptional, world class warriors in Greece (a description that would also fit many Persian troops) who were fighting to defend their homes and families. That is a powerful motivation and probably contributed a lot to the Greek's success.
3rd of all, it is true that Greek weapon and armour technology was certainly better than what average Persian soldiers would use.
4th of all, the Greeks had a style of fighting that was almost specifically designed to counter the way many Persians fought. Their equipment, style, formations, tactics, etc were honed after centuries of defending their homeland against horse-mounted foes loaded to the teeth with missiles (there was much more to many Persian armies than that, but they were still an essential factor). More importantly it was a style that was designed for and well suited to the type of terrain in Greece (and much of Anatolia where the Greeks made great inroads).
5th of all, Persians had to try to control a massive Empire rank with rebellions. Often times loyalty was an issue with troops as much as morale.

The Greeks actually had a lot of respect for many people fighting in the Persian army, so I doubt that they were bad troops.
Also, you mention Romans, look what happened when Romans fought the Arsacid Empire (now this I do know a lot more about). The Romans always performed well on the own terrain (wooded, hilly, etc) they were used to fighting in, and the Arsacids almost always outperformed the Romans in the terrain they were used to fighting in (vast open areas of land), despite having serious disadvantages in manpower and likely wealth.
The thing is that both the Roman and Arsacid way of fighting dominated in their respective Empires, but failed to perform well outside of it. What works well one place will not always work well in another, and both militaries were products of their national experiences.
Don't forget though, when they chose to use it, the Arsacids had some pretty effective infantry at their command (the type that performed well in hilly terrain). I remember reading about how a force of Median infantry (Media was part of the Arsacid Empire at this point) wiped out a Roman legion (and if I remember correctly, they were also at a disadvantage of numbers).

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the ancient Persians were bad warriors. The Medieval Middle East though, based on what I have read, I would need to agree with you for the most part. They seemed to be pretty lousy. I am guessing again though that that had something to do with morale of troops who were only fighting so that their insane Caliph did not have the testicles chopped off (yes, exaggeration for effect ~;)).
Byzantines on the other hand were fighting for their homeland. Lot's of Crusaders truly believed in the Religious reasoning for the Crusades and were fighting to reclaim the Holy Land from unbelievers and stop the persecution of pilgrims. Those are a lot more powerful motivations than fear of a whip.
Also, I believe that the West had more of a warrior culture, whereas in many areas of the Middle East, that warrior culture did not exist and people lived in fear under an authoritarian rule.
Maybe I am wrong, but that is the impression that my readings have given me. If you want proof, look at the Mongols and what happened to them when they settled in the Middle East and adopted Middle Eastern culture and traditions.

Greek technology was not superior to what was available to Persians. Bronze plate armor? Too expensive, not commonly used by Greeks and in fact not much more protective. I certainly would not call most hoplites best in the world - their style of fighting was not that unique (a shieldwall of heavy infantry).

I don't agree that Persians were skirmishers - they were a missile heavy army, yes, but the Greeks slaughtered a fair share of infantry and cavalry, not just archers. Then comes the fact most hoplites were, in fact, untrained and undrilled, apart from what the individual might have practiced in their free time.


Regarding Arsacids - those were conquered by Trajan.

The later Sassanids hurled millions of men at Rome's borders in an attempt to restore the Achaemenid empire, and these were wiped out every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

Greek technology was not superior to what was available to Persians. Bronze plate armor? Too expensive, not commonly used by Greeks and in fact not much more protective. I certainly would not call most hoplites best in the world - their style of fighting was not that unique (a shieldwall of heavy infantry).

I don't agree that Persians were skirmishers - they were a missile heavy army, yes, but the Greeks slaughtered a fair share of infantry and cavalry, not just archers. Then comes the fact most hoplites were, in fact, untrained and undrilled, apart from what the individual might have practiced in their free time.


Regarding Arsacids - those were conquered by Trajan.

The later Sassanids hurled millions of men at Rome's borders in an attempt to restore the Achaemenid empire, and these were wiped out every time.

---

The hoplon was a massive improvement over the wicker and wooden shields used by many Persian troops. Also, I never said they were the best in the world or that their fighting style was unique. I think the fact that their fighting style was NOT unique speaks of its effectiveness.
Also, I never said that Persians were skirmishers. I am not sure where you got that. I said that they used cavalry and missiles extensively (things that the Greeks did and that they were well suited to counter). I am well aware that Persian armies would often contain excellent light/heavy cavalry and infantry. That was one of the points I tried to get by in my post.
Also, no, not every hellenic person who fought was a trained fighter, but it was a culture that put an enormous value on a fighters ability (just like Rome hugely valued military leadership and prowess), and judging by their successes against terrible odds, I think it is likely that a good many of them were excellent fighters.
One of the strengths of the Phalanx formation of course is that you do not have to be an excellent fighter to defeat a better opponent. If you are though, all the better.
As far as the Arsacids, I got an exam today and I cannot get engaged in a three year debate with you on this, but suffice it to say that you are making a BIG mistake if you just write them off. The main reason for their downfall (not at the hands of Trajan who won a victory over them, but did not conquer them) was internal disputes. They had a divided feudal society without strong central leadership. The political machinery was not in place of the King of the Arsacids to control his nobility and conquered people. They are a society that destroyed themselves, but their military prowess was exceptional. (I have written two research papers on them since I started going to school)
As far as the Sassanids, no, I am not very impressed by them. They suffered many of the same problems as the later Islamic empires. The Achaemenid and Arsacid dynasties though boasted excellent militaries through much of their existence.

But why were the Sassanids so pathetic?


And why were the Achaemenids such failures? It seems they always outnumbered their opponents, and nearly always lost. I wonder how they managed not to die out.:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

Regarding Arsacids - those were conquered by Trajan.

---

Vuk has already addressed this, but please do some research. I'm amazed anybody could come out with such a statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

But why were the Sassanids so pathetic?


And why were the Achaemenids such failures? It seems they always outnumbered their opponents, and nearly always lost. I wonder how they managed not to die out.:inquisitive:

---

The Achaemenids were failures? I didn't know you considered creating one of the most powerful and the largest empires in history and maintaining it against continuous invasions and rebellions for 880 years a failure. I guess you have some pretty high standards.
You have to understand that much of what you know about the Achaemenids comes to you from a Greco-Roman perspective. (which of course is not going to be unbiased.)
I really suggest you do more research into the Achaemenid Emporers, the Persian military of the time, and read about the different military campaigns that the Persians conducted. I think you will be surprised.

By the same standards of course, you can accuse the Romans of being failures. The Roman Empire survived as a single entity only some ~350 years. (not that impressive when you compare it to the Achaemenids.)
The Romans continuously throughout their history suffered major military defeats, and just kept turning out men. Even the greatest Empires in history will suffer defeats, you understand (and Rome suffered some really inexcusable ones...), but you also have to look at their victories.
If you look only at the defeats of either the Romans or the Persians you will probably go away thinking that they were a pretty pathetic excuse for an Empire. When you look at their victories though, and the things they were able to achieve, you gain a clearer picture of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

Vuk has already addressed this, but please do some research. I'm amazed anybody could come out with such a statement.

---

Trajan conquered western Parthia adding it to Rome, and placed a puppet king on the throne, making rest of Parthia his puppet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

The Achaemenids were failures? I didn't know you considered creating one of the most powerful and the largest empires in history and maintaining it against continuous invasions and rebellions for 880 years a failure. I guess you have some pretty high standards.

---

880? Are you aware the empire only came into existence in 550BC?

Quote:

---

You have to understand that much of what you know about the Achaemenids comes to you from a Greco-Roman perspective. (which of course is not going to be unbiased.)

---

Yes, that I am aware of.

Quote:

---

I really suggest you do more research into the Achaemenid Emporers, the Persian military of the time, and read about the different military campaigns that the Persians conducted. I think you will be surprised.

---

Hmm, no. Even the book, Achaemenid Persian army by Montvert, has a rather contemptuous view on them.

Quote:

---

By the same standards of course, you can accuse the Romans of being failures. The Roman Empire survived as a single entity only some ~350 years. (not that impressive when you compare it to the Achaemenids.)

---

The Roman empire survived as an empire, let's see, ~60BC to 395AD, which is roughly 450 years.

Quote:

---

The Romans continuously throughout their history suffered major military defeats, and just kept turning out men. Even the greatest Empires in history will suffer defeats, you understand (and Rome suffered some really inexcusable ones...), but you also have to look at their victories.

---

Rome was victorious far more often. Not to mention they weren't doomed by one unsuccessful invasion.

Quote:

---

If you look only at the defeats of either the Romans or the Persians you will probably go away thinking that they were a pretty pathetic excuse for an Empire.

When you look at their victories though, and the things they were able to achieve, you gain a clearer picture of them.

---

Ok, show me 1 Achaemenid victory. Just one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

1st of all, and most importantly, often times their soldiers were conquered people without loyalty or a reason to fight for their emporer. If they were more afraid of their enemy than the consequences of disobeying, they would run. (and who could blame them?)

---

Im sorry, but ... Fighting for ones life is motivation enough and they werent exactly whipped into battle :/

Quote:

---

2nd of all, they were fighting exceptional, world class warriors in Greece (a description that would also fit many Persian troops) who were fighting to defend their homes and families. That is a powerful motivation and probably contributed a lot to the Greek's success.

---

Exceptional world class warriors? Citizen levies with no training (Spartans not included) are not.

Quote:

---

3rd of all, it is true that Greek weapon and armour technology was certainly better than what average Persian soldiers would use.

---

What weapon and armor technology did they have that the barbarian world did not know of? Please explain, dont be so vague.

Quote:

---

4th of all, the Greeks had a style of fighting that was almost specifically designed to counter the way many Persians fought. Their equipment, style, formations, tactics, etc were honed after centuries of defending their homeland against horse-mounted foes loaded to the teeth with missiles (there was much more to many Persian armies than that, but they were still an essential factor). More importantly it was a style that was designed for and well suited to the type of terrain in Greece (and much of Anatolia where the Greeks made great inroads).

---

Wrong, besides the Sakae, they were fighting mass infantry armies most of the time, Lydia,Babylon,Egypt etc. all these had excellent heavy infantry not in any way inferior to the greeks.

Quote:

---

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the ancient Persians were bad warriors. The Medieval Middle East though, based on what I have read, I would need to agree with you for the most part. They seemed to be pretty lousy. I am guessing again though that that had something to do with morale of troops who were only fighting so that their insane Caliph did not have the testicles chopped off (yes, exaggeration for effect ~;)).

---

Source?

Quote:

---

Byzantines on the other hand were fighting for their homeland. Lot's of Crusaders truly believed in the Religious reasoning for the Crusades and were fighting to reclaim the Holy Land from unbelievers and stop the persecution of pilgrims. Those are a lot more powerful motivations than fear of a whip.

---

So the Byzantines really didnt threaten anyone that their homes would be destroyed and their families butchered? Amazing.

Quote:

---

Also, I believe that the West had more of a warrior culture, whereas in many areas of the Middle East, that warrior culture did not exist and people lived in fear under an authoritarian rule.
Maybe I am wrong, but that is the impression that my readings have given me. If you want proof, look at the Mongols and what happened to them when they settled in the Middle East and adopted Middle Eastern culture and traditions.

---

Prove it. The Mongol decline in Mid East happened after Ain Jalut, where, coincidentally, they were defeated by people without any sort of warrior culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

The hoplon was a massive improvement over the wicker and wooden shields used by many Persian troops. Also, I never said they were the best in the world or that their fighting style was unique. I think the fact that their fighting style was NOT unique speaks of its effectiveness.

---

Wrong. First of all, its not a Hoplon, it is an Aspis, second, even a wicker basket is extremely tough, and a tower shield would offer much much better cover than anything else around. Think roman tower shields

Quote:

---

Also, no, not every hellenic person who fought was a trained fighter, but it was a culture that put an enormous value on a fighters ability (just like Rome hugely valued military leadership and prowess), and judging by their successes against terrible odds, I think it is likely that a good many of them were excellent fighters.

---

Use facts. Please.

Quote:

---

As far as the Sassanids, no, I am not very impressed by them. They suffered many of the same problems as the later Islamic empires. The Achaemenid and Arsacid dynasties though boasted excellent militaries through much of their existence.

---

The Sassanids outlasted the Parthians and achieved much more. I doubt they would be wiped out so easily if there was no Al Qadissyah.

Double post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

Ok, show me 1 Achaemenid victory. Just one.

---

Ephesos
Marsyas
Artemisium (debatable)
Opis
Lade
Pelusium
Eretria
Thymbra
Patigrabana

I demand a list. Please? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

Trajan conquered western Parthia adding it to Rome, and placed a puppet king on the throne, making rest of Parthia his puppet.

---

He conquered the western part of the Parthian Empire, not Parthia. He didn't get anywhere near Parthia proper, but that's being pedantic I guess. And how long did this puppet rule? I suppose it comes down to the use of the word conquered, did Trajan defeat the Arsacids? Yes, of course he did. Did he conquer them? Certainly not. And even the defeat does not necessarily mean their troops were of poor quality, how many empires could cope with another large empire attacking, whilst in a civil war?

IIRC the puppet king ruled Parthia for 4 years.


@Catiline I wouldn't call Thymbra too much of a victory.

4 years? I would have to check but I'm pretty sure it was little more than 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

IIRC the puppet king ruled Parthia for 4 years.


@Catiline I wouldn't call Thymbra too much of a victory.

---

Huh. Obviously wikipedia isn't the arbiter of such things, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thymbra. Croesus got beat.

Parthamaspates was King of Parthia for one year, between 116 and 117. Osroes then took the throne back, and Parthamapastes was given (the confusingly named in this context) client state of Osroene to rule for four or five years by the Romans up to his death.

Oh god, the silliness of this thread is hardly believable.

So I really suggest that you pick up "The Legacy of Persia" somewhere, I don't think it's that expensive, it deals with the rise of the Achaemenid empire, the subsequent problems of an overextended empire and finally its defeat at the hands of Alexander.

Quote:

---

We all know no middle eastern

---

The Middle East. One monolithic entity with one monolithic history. Yup.

Quote:

---

(more specifically, Persian and the like) army

---

Ah, so we're talking about the Achaemenid Empire here. I hope you are aware that Cyrus was probably one of the best politicians and military leaders, certainly of his time, and perhaps also of later eras. You don't think they managed to conquer Media, Babylonia, Anatolia and Egypt solely by means of politics?

Quote:

---

could stand up to the brave Greeks and Romans... But why?

---

Interesting Eurocentric terminology here. I hope you're well-aware that certain scientific pursuits, such as astronomy, were only introduced to the Hellenistic world after the conquest of Persia. In fact, one of Herodotos' friends was executed in Athens for performing astronomy, which at that point, was regarded as blasphemic. So yeah, they were way more interdependent, and the Greeks and Romans were not superior

Quote:

---

They seem to have had inexhaustible manpower, and incredible riches. The same goes on in the medieval era - no matter how many men the Saracens brought, these were mown down by the crusaders and Byzantines.

---

Ah, medieval history of the Middle East, finally something I can talk about.

Most of the time, the image is given of the Muslims rolling over the Byzantines and Sassanids on camels and/or horses, clutching the Qur'an in one hand and a sword in the other. As other historians have rightly pointed out, the idea of left-handed Muslim soliders (since the Qur'an can only be touched using the right hand) is absolutely ridiculous.

This image is false. However, the image of a Muslim wave coming towards European Palestine and Byzantium, with some few, hopefully outnumbered European heroes holding the breach successfully is as false. The history of the Crusades is long and complicated, but I'll try to give a short overview of the situation here.

Around 570, Muhammad (the Prophet of Islam) was born. According to Islamic history, the first revelations came when he was around 40, in the year 610. After another then years he left Mecca for the city of Yathrib, which would then be known as Medinat al-Nabi (or simply Medina). After uniting many of the Arab tribes, he died in 632, in firm control of most of the Hijaz. When he died, several Arab tribes broke off and it was up to Abu Bakr, his succesor, to re-unite them.

Under the second Caliph (coming from Arabic khalifat, "representative" or "successor"), Umar, the invasion of Syria, Iraq, Iran and Egypt began. There are clues that the Arabs knew what they were doing, as they first seized Syria, thus cutting off Egypt from the rest of the Byzantine Empire, that cut them off from their major source of grain. After the invasion of Syria, Iraq and Iran were conquered (although it would take another twenty years for the Arabs to reach Khurasan at the ends of Iran. Ali, the Fourth Caliph, fought a civil war against another general, Mu‘awiya, whose heirs would become the Umayyad Caliphs after the death of Ali that came in 661.

Some 400 years later the situation had changed. Around the start of the 11th century, many Turkish tribes migrated into the Middle East from their homeland in Central Asia. There had been several shifts of power; whereas the early Islamic armies were dominated by non-professionals, under the Umayyads that had changed to Syrian professional soldiers and even later (under the Abbasids) to Turkish slave-soldiers (ghilman or mamlukes). The old Umayyad Caliphate had been destroyed by the Abbasids, but they too waned in power. Around 1050, they controlled little more than some nominal territory in Iraq and around Baghdad and were largely dependent on a Shi‘ite state, the Buyids and later the Sunnite Seljuks.


So why were the Crusaders so successful? There are several reasons:
1) The Seljuks had been at war with the Fatimids and constantly vied over control of Palestine. By the time the Crusaders had arrived in Palestine (1099), the Fatimids had recently recaptured Jerusalem from Seljuq control and were unable to fortify it to a large degree.
2) The many Muslim states regarded the Crusaders as simply another political power that had come to the Middle East. There were Muslim factions, Christian factions (the Byzantines), Muslim tributary states to the Byzantine empire (the Emirate of Aleppo) and factions that were allied with the Byzantines (the Fatimid Caliphate). Besides, they were too busy waging war on eachother to pay attention to some people on boats.

Don't forget that the Crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099 and that it was reconquered less than a century later by Saladin, who successfully held the city from that point onwards. His successors were less successful, but even though some Crusaders were able to gain control of a large part of Jerusalem (by treaty, no less) in the thirteenth century, there would never be a military reconquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders.


Now I believe you were hinting at something else when you said "no matter how many men the Saracens threw at them", and that is the Battle of Poitiers/Tours in 732. The word "Saracen" is a bit outdated, though not necessarily offensive, it does not hint at great knowledge; I believe it comes from "Sarakenoi", Greek for "inhabitants of tents". In the initial invasions of the Persian and Roman Middle-East there had been non-Arabs amongst the Muslim armies: Persians and blacks from Ethopia, and later Berbers, Greeks, Kurds, Turks and possibly an Indian here and there. They were also not necessarily Muslim: as the early Umayyad Caliphate had outlawed proselytisation, there were at least some Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews and Hindus united under the Islamic invasion force.

About the Battle of Tours, it has been cited in virtually every story about Europe. Its general story goes a bit like this:

"In 711, a huge conquering Muslim army came from North Africa led by a fearsome warriors. They devastated the Christian lands of Spain and wanted to subjugated all of Europe in the name of Islam. Then, during the battle of Poitiers the valiant hero Charles Martel came and crushed the infidels, rescuing Europe from an age of Islamic tyranny and horror."

It makes a nice story, surely, but it's not historical. As far as we know, the Arabs/Muslims were not at all interested in a war of conquest; Tariq ibn Zayid had crossed into Iberia in 711, and although later Muslim states would form up in Iberia, there are no clues that suggest that the invasion of Gaul was any more than a war of booty (ghazw). Why didn't the Muslims come back later? It's simple really, they weren't interested at all in conquering Gaul. Muslim writers of the time were much more occupied with the failed conquest of Constantinople to be concerned about a minor skirmish at the very edge of the known world. People have pointed to the Arabic name for the battle "the battle of the court of martyrs", but the term "martyr" is used for anyone who dies fighting for God. There is little to suggest that this battle was important at all to the Muslims.

So there we go, I hope that settles most of it.

Ahum, no. Doesn't really adress the huge defeats and the hugely superior numbers.

Can you show some examples of huge defeats with huge numerical superiority?

Thread recap: people were trolling, randomers went along with it, no one realized it :D

Thread recap recap: OP:"This group of people in history sucked. Prove me wrong." Everyone:"Here are some facts and battles." OP:"Nah, they still suck, I'm right."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Can you show some examples of huge defeats with huge numerical superiority?

---

Marathon, Plataea, Mycale, Salamis, the invasion of Scythia, the invasion of Nubia, Issus, Gaugamela, Cunaxa... And those are just the ones off the top of my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

Marathon, Plataea, Mycale, Salamis, the invasion of Scythia, the invasion of Nubia, Issus, Gaugamela, Cunaxa... And those are just the ones off the top of my head.

---

All ancient.Please give us some Medieval ones.

His question was regarding ancients specifically :juggle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

All ancient.Please give us some Medieval ones.

---

How about the Battle of Montgisard. In addition, in the 3rd Crusade Lionheart was also outnumbered. It's also a matter of tacitcs. The advantage of the knights was in their armour but these were also less and more expensive. The feuds in the Western Europe also played a role in creating people whose only profession is war. On the other hand, the territory of the Kingdom Of Jerusalem was densely populated and allowed faster mobilisation of that force. It is all about terrain, I think. In the Horns of Hattin that worked against the Crusades.

It's not really about inferiority, it's more about battle tactics and also, very important factor was the internal loyalty of the troops as well the ability of the general to organize his troops.

Here is a quote from the original post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

The same goes on in the medieval era - no matter how many men the Saracens brought, these were mown down by the crusaders and Byzantines.

Is there some inherent technological inferiority in the region compared to the west?:inquisitive:

---

I im more or less with Prince Cobra on this one,but not entirely. To me the success of early crusades was more about the fractured nature of the region rather some inheritent weakness of the population. Once the political power was unified.The chancess of any successful Crusades diminished and the Middle Easterns were even able to be first to stop the Mongol Invasions.I am not dismissing the fighting capability of specially European knights in any capacity as life long training in matters martial, no doubt created one of the finest fighters of the time.

Nevertheless. Turko-Persian Seljuk Empire dealt a grippling defeat to Byzantines at Manzikert 1071 and as far as i understand they were outnumbered against Byzantines. Numbers suggested that Byzantines had 40 000-70 000 men, while Seljuks 20 000- 30 000. So the Seljuks were outnumbered 2:1.When the armies of 1st Crusade arrived at the area.There was no more a Seljuk Empire, but a dozen small Sultanates fighting each other.

When we look at the Battle´s of the 1st Crusade. At the 1st battle fo Dorylaeum,1097. 40 000 to 50 000 crusaders defeated between 6000 -8000 soldiers of Sultanate of Rum, with similar casualties to both sides.Some sources suggest that the actual casualties of Crusaders were larger then the forces of Rum.
Next we have maybe the brightest Crusader victory, with similar odds with Seljuks at Manzikert, Battle of Ascalon. About 10 000 crusaders against 20 000 troops of Egyptian Fatimid Caliphate. In this battle it can be said that in this first major open battle between the Fatimids and Crusaders.Fatimids under estimated their enemies to a large extent, were caught off guard and were soundly beaten by the Cusaders suffering heavy casualties.

Next, Crusade of 1101. The Crusaders were defeated and shattered in three battles by Sultanate of Rum and their allies.One at Mersivan and twice at Heraclea. I dont have exact figures for these battles, but i doubt the military capacity of Sultanate of Rum had exponentially increased in 4 years after their defeat at Dorylaeum.

2nd Crusade. 2nd Battle of Dolyraeum. 20 000 strong German Crusader army crushed by Seljuks.2000 survivors on the Crusader side.

I have left out the sieges and concentrated on open battles, so far as it can be clearly pointed out that during any of the sieges of early crusades.The attacking Crusaders were not outnumbered by the besieged forces.

I have no more time currently, but i think the early Crusades already show that the numerical superiority was not continuosly at the side of the Muslims. More like other way around.

I have to admit, some of these posts have been very interesting, I haven't researched much of the "Arabic Side" so even having these tibbles of information on the subject have been illuminating for me. :2thumbsup:

As a side note, Cyrus is someone I have always been interested in exploring as a character, he seems to be the "Solomon" of the era. Anyone recommend any good resource articles on him outside of wikipedia? (I have already been there)

Herodotus is a good read for the history of Cyrus, a great read in general actually. I have a decent book on all 3 Persian Empires, it's called The Persians An Introduction by Maria Brosius and it's a good read for a someone with a general idea of the period. I don't think you'd get it anywhere for less than £20 or so though. If you are genuinely interested pm me and I could post it to you. So long as you send it back. :wink: You should be able to pick up Herodotus anywhere for buttons.

I read "The Legacy of Persia" which goes into a lot more than just Cyrus and the rise of the Achaemenids.

As of this thread, it's inanity is starting to annoy me. I think the OP might have trouble realising that Middle-Easterners can be halfway competent at certain things. The general feel of this thread is very Eurocentric and the fact that the OP's concept of the Orient (to use antiquated terminology) is not being fulfilled makes me wonder whether he was interested in getting another view on the matter, or just wanted to re-affirm his own Eurocentrism.

I have no trouble realizing they can be half way decent.

The problem is that they were far inferior to the west in military matters. But why? Why were their elite of the elite inferior to a levy of untrained Greek citizens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

The problem is that they were far inferior to the west in military matters. But why? Why were their elite of the elite inferior to a levy of untrained Greek citizens?

---

That wasn't the case...

It wasn't? Marathon, Plataea and Thermopylae beg to differ.

Because we all know that battles only consisted of which soldier had the stronger will and the most talent. Commanders, terrain, geopolitics etc...all have nothing to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

It wasn't? Marathon, Plataea and Thermopylae beg to differ.

---

I don't think the Spartan hippeis counts as untrained levy.

I don't recall any Spartan hippeis at Marathon, and at Thermopylae they were far from the only Greeks. At Plataea, all Greeks got to slaughter some Persians.

So you think the hoplites of Athens were untrained before Marathon? Or the other Peloponessians at Thermopylae?

They were largely untrained, yes. Spartans were seen as unique because they had a training program at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

They were largely untrained, yes. Spartans were seen as unique because they had a training program at all.

---

Incorrect.Spartans had a life long "training program": Agoge, compared to other Greeks being part time citizen soldiers. That does not mean the others would not have trained at all or gotten basic military training.Fighting in formation always needs some amount of cohesion so the force can act together. Most of the history, most men in armies have been levies or conscripts. Full time soldiers mostly only elites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

It wasn't? Marathon, Plataea and Thermopylae beg to differ.

---

Thermopylae wasn't a Greek victory.

Marathon and Plataea indeed were decisive victories, from the Greek point of view. You have to understand that those battles didn't carry the same importance for the Persians and for the Greeks. For Greeks, it was a fight for survival, for Persian it was a punitive expedition against some "barbarians" on the fringes of the empire.

I must be missing something in this thread, I am pretty sure you chaps know of the Greek institutions creating the ephebi.
The military training lasted three years, and one could not become a citizen and thus vote without undergoing it.

As trivia, their oath:

Quote:

---

I will not disgrace the sacred arms, nor will I desert my comrade in arms wherever I may be stationed. And I will fight in defense of the sacred and the secular, and I will hand on my fatherland not less, but greater and better, as far as is in my own power and together with all my comrades, and I will pay thoughtful heed to whoever may be in authority over me, and to the established laws and to whatever laws may be established in the future. And if anyone overthrows them, I will not permit it as far as is in my own power and together with all my comrades, and I will honor our ancestral traditions as sacred.
Let these gods be witness:
Aglauros, Hestia, Enyo, Enyalios, Ares and Athena Areia, Zeus, Thallo ("Flourish"), Auxo ("Increase"), Hegemone ("Leadership"), Heracles, the Boundaries of the Fatherland, the Wheat, the Barley, the Vines, the Olive Trees, the Fig Trees.

---

Quote:

---

Marathon and Plataea indeed were decisive victories, from the Greek point of view. You have to understand that those battles didn't carry the same importance for the Persians and for the Greeks. For Greeks, it was a fight for survival, for Persian it was a punitive expedition against some "barbarians" on the fringes of the empire.

---

Specifically, the Athenian support of the Ionian Revolt, which (as you should know) was put down pretty quickly. Even though the Greek effort to stop the Persian invasion was successful, there are a lot of factors that are left out of the equation here. The reason Xerxes pulled out of Greece was not because of some inherent Greek superiority, it was because there were problems in the east. Seriously, if Persia had thrown everything into conquering Greece, Sparta and Athens would have been left as burning rubble.

A ground force of hundreds of thousands and a navy of hundreds of ships isn't a trivial amount. :shrug:

Persia "invaded" pretty much out of principle, Greece was a rocky good for nothing land, Macedonia with all its pastures and mines was well into Darius' hands...
Egypt pretty much sucked far too many resources for the Persians...

Quote:

---

A ground force of hundreds of thousands and a navy of hundreds of ships isn't a trivial amount.

---

The armies that were sent to Greece constituted about half of the total Persian armed forces, IIRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

The armies that were sent to Greece constituted about half of the total Persian armed forces, IIRC.

---

There you go. One doesn't commit half of one's military resources to resolve such a minor matter.

Quote:

---

There you go. One doesn't commit half of one's military resources to resolve such a minor matter.

---

Naturally, but it was not just a minor matter, it was a punitive expedition. However, it should be realised that the Persians were very much capable of crushing the Greeks. There were simply other things that did not allow them to do so at the time.

Well, if Syracuse sided decisively with the Greeks, maybe not even the full Persian force would not have been able to defeat the Greeks. And other such hypotheticals.

My point was that we shouldn't diminish the importance of the war in the Persian perspective, even if it was (much) greater in the eyes of the Greeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

A ground force of hundreds of thousands and a navy of hundreds of ships isn't a trivial amount. :shrug:

---

Hundreds of thousands is an exaggeration, the real number was much smaller. At Thermopylae, even though Greeks sources mention such numbers as million or two millions of Persian, in reality the number was certainly less than one hundred thousands and that's including entire Persian expedition, not just fighters, but cooks, dancers, concubines, eunuchs, musicians etc...

Huh, that contradicts most estimates I've seen.

I'm assuming something in the range of 150000-300000, which is where most fall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Huh, that contradicts most estimates I've seen.

I'm assuming something in the range of 150000-300000, which is where most fall.

---

There are some estimates that say Persian army was 300,000 strong, indeed, but it is really an unlikely number, especially since most modern estimates of the battle of Gaugamela say Persian army was 100,000 strong. It is doubtful that Persian would muster 3 times that force for a punitive expedition at the very end of the empire.

Others' words serve best:

Quote:

---

If it is true that the Persian army consisted of something between 50,000 and 100,000 fighting men, it follows not only that the Greeks were a nation of liars or dreamers, but also that the actions of the Greeks and of the Persians were totally irrational. One must wonder why the Persians should have sent by land an army that could have been easily transported on ships; why should the fleet have followed the army along the coast step by step for five months, suffering great losses because of storms; why should the Greeks have avoided any major military engagement on land for almost two years; why should the Athenians have abandoned their city to the Persians, allowing them to destroy it and massacre the poorer citizens who did not have the means to seek refuge abroad; why should the coalized Greeks have decided that the only possible strategy consisted of abandoning the country to the enemy, while trying to defend the line of the Isthmus of Corinth.

...

Very few scholars deny that the Persian fleet disposed of at least 600 triremes plus other warships and transports. Since a trireme could remain fit for action with 100 soldiers on board and could transport up to 300 passengers, a fleet of 600 triremes could have easily carried 60,000 soldiers with their supplies directly from Asia Minor to Attika. This is what was done in the case of the Persian landing at Marathon ten years earlier. In 480 B.C. the construction of two bridges across the sea at the Hellespont would have been a pointless gesture if the Persian army had been a force of 100,000 men or less.

...

According to Herodotos, the King had concluded that it was necessary for the national survival of Persia to destroy the power of Athens and Sparta; the course of history, as yet unknown in Herodotos' time, proved that the King was right. According to Herodotos, the King knew quite well that he was engaging in a risky enterprise, but decided that the gamble was reasonable if there was a chance whatsoever of success (VII 10, 50). King Xerxes was a rational ruler who decided that all the resources of his empire had to be engaged in a calculated risk, since the very existence of that empire was at stake. The King had in mind not only the support given by the Greek mainland to the revolt of his Greek subjects of Asia Minor and the humiliation suffered by the Persian army at Marathon in 490 B.C., but probably most of all the support given by the Greeks to the revolt of Egypt, a key province of the imperial system. Preparations for the Greek campaign were initiated immediately after the end of the campaign for the pacification of Egypt (VII 8). At that moment the King would have said, "All we possess will pass to the Greeks or all they possess will pass to us" (VII 12). It is currently assumed that Herodotos was totally ignorant of what is called philosophy of history, whereas here he predicted correctly history's future course. The Kings of Persia as well as the Greeks foresaw what finally took place about a century and a half later: if the Persian universal empire could not subdue the Greeks of the mainland, a Greek universal empire would replace it.]

---

Though I'm not sure about that last bit...

Also note Lazenby, keeping in mind the above on naval considerations:

Quote:

---

But does it follow that sea power was the
decisive factor in the war? Modern scholars often appear to think so: the
Persian army, we are told, depended on sea-borne supplies, despite the
fact that there is no evidence for this view, and that if the Persian navy
was anything like as large as Herodotos (cf. 7.89 ff.; 184. 1-2) and the
contemporary playwright, Aischylos, believed (cf. The Persians, 341-3),
it would have been manned by well over a quarter of a million men and
have needed every ounce of supplies it could carry or convoy for its own
purposes. It is also not explained how the Persian army could have
marched from Therma to Thermopylai, in 480, apparently without experiencing
any commissariat problems,despite its being out of contact with
the fleet for nearly three weeks ; or, for that matter, how, after the fleet's
defeat at Salamis and its consequent withdrawal to Asia Minor, a substantial
proportion of the army could have remained in Greece for nearly a year without starving

---

Quote:

---

The only evidence for Persian
supply-ships is Herod [otos] 7.25.2 and 191.1, but the first passage refers simply to
the carrying of supplies to food-dumps in Thrace, and although in the second the
supply-ships are certainly accompanying the fleet, they are surely there to supply
the fleet itself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Others' words serve best:



Though I'm not sure about that last bit...

Also note Lazenby, keeping in mind the above on naval considerations:

---

Unfortunately, that is wishful thinking. When the first sentence starts with "if it isn't true, than Greeks are liars" you can easily deduce it's not serious scholarly work.

Greeks aren't liars, it's just that at that time, size of the armies were estimated with the naked eye, there usually weren't any written documents. Compared to the Middle East, Greece was sparsely populated. Population of Athens at its peak was around 300,000 people, including women, children and about a 100,000 slaves. Sparta's male population was around 15,000. Seeing an invading army of around 75,000 was a huge shock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Unfortunately, that is wishful thinking. When the first sentence starts with "if it isn't true, than Greeks are liars" you can easily deduce it's not serious scholarly work.

Greeks aren't liars, it's just that at that time, size of the armies were estimated with the naked eye, there usually weren't any written documents. Compared to the Middle East, Greece was sparsely populated. Population of Athens at its peak was around 300,000 people, including women, children and about a 100,000 slaves. Sparta's male population was around 15,000. Seeing an invading army of around 75,000 was a huge shock.

---

And not for nothing was Herodotus known as the father of lies... :inquisitive:

The amount of persians given above is absolutely ridiculous. Do you even know how many Baivarabama were active at a given time? And no more were raised except in times of crisis (Alexander)

@Sarmatian; Greeks arent liars? Oh, that must be a genetic error that sets them apart from every other people on earth...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Sparta's male population was around 15,000.

---

Someone is ignoring the 150 thousand helots....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

@Sarmatian; Greeks arent liars? Oh, that must be a genetic error that sets them apart from every other people on earth...

---

Bah, the point was, Greeks are no different than any other nation in that regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

Someone is ignoring the 150 thousand helots....

---

Indeed, there were around 150,000 helots, but not in the city of Sparta, rather in entire region Sparta controlled. Population of that region was probably around 250,000, again counting women, children and helots.

Neither Athens nor Sparta have ever fielded an army 75,000-100,000, so the mere size of the Persian army was shocking to them, which of course leads to inflated estimates.

Similarly, during the siege of Constantinople by the Ottomans in the middle ages, Constantinople defenders' estimates of Ottoman army varied from quarter of a million to a full million, while we know from the relatively accurate Ottoman sources that the size of Ottoman army was 100,000-110,000, and that's including 20,000-25,000 irregulars and non-combatants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Bah, the point was, Greeks are no different than any other nation in that regard.

---

I understood what you meant. There is a tradition in Europe of the size being significantly larger thus more to boast about. Which sounds better? Defeating 100,000 or 350,000.

Both sound ridiculous, tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

I don't recall any Spartan hippeis at Marathon, and at Thermopylae they were far from the only Greeks. At Plataea, all Greeks got to slaughter some Persians.

---

Spartan "Hippeis" were a de facto elite infantry corps, even though they were nominally "knights". They had horses, they just didn't care to fight on horseback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

Regarding Arsacids - those were conquered by Trajan.

---

As said, Trajan conquered the western part of their empire, briefly at that. Also, the first time Rome fought against them they suffered a humiliating defeat at Carrhae, while they had superior numbers at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by |Sith|DarthRoach

The later Sassanids hurled millions of men at Rome's borders in an attempt to restore the Achaemenid empire, and these were wiped out every time.

---

Don't pin me on specific battles because I can't name any, but the Sassanids came quite close to conquering Constantinople during their last war. The Byzantines were basically reduced to their European possessions, which were being threatened by migrating Slavs and steppe peoples. Only Emperor Heraclius' charisma and slashing of all non-critical spending enabled them to raise enough troops, and the following reconquest of their eastern territories was basically a do-or-die enterprise which miraculously succeeded. Sadly, this left both Constantinople and Persia so impoverished that neither was able to resist the Arab invasions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Unfortunately, that is wishful thinking. When the first sentence starts with "if it isn't true, than Greeks are liars" you can easily deduce it's not serious scholarly work.

---

These are excerpts...

Quote:

---

Seeing an invading army of around 75,000 was a huge shock.

---

Then the combined Greek force would have outnumbered the Persians. :shrug:

You don't address the points I quoted, however. Just give them a glance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catiline

And not for nothing was Herodotus known as the father of lies...

---

Give him credit for his proto-rationalistic approach; at least cut the guy some slack:

Quote:

---

Now wheter Xerxes did indeed send a herald to Argos saying that which has been reported, and whether envoys of the Argives who had gone up to Susa inquired of Artaxerxes concerning friendship, I am not able to say for certain; nor do I declare any opinion about the matters in question other than that which the Argives themselves report...I am however bound to report that which is reported,though I am not bound altogether to believe it; and let this saying be considered to hold good as regards every narrative in the history: for I must add that this is also reported...

---

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.

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?

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.

I wasn't relating my posts to the debate over inferiority, which I feel has been dealt with anyway.

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.

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.