Inferiority of middle eastern militaries in the ancient world?

[Vuk]

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?

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.

[|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.

[Vuk]

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.

[|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.

[Vuk]

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.

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.

[|Sith|DarthRoach]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Catiline]

Ok, show me 1 Achaemenid victory. Just one.

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

[johnhughthom]

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?

[Lazy O]

Double post.

[johnhughthom]

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.

[Kralizec]

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.

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.

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.

[Montmorency]

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...

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

Then the combined Greek force would have outnumbered the Persians.

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

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:

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...

[Sarmatian]

Then the combined Greek force would have outnumbered the Persians.

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.

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.

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.

[Montmorency]

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.

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?

[|Sith|DarthRoach]

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.

[Lazy O]

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 :/

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.