How was Alexanders army able to deal with the Persian archers?

[Ca Putt]

IIRC we had such a discussion here some years ago. I think the "result" was that the combination of "heavy" arrow proof armor, thick shields and deflection through Pikes. In addtion to swift cavalry which has proven usefull against archers throughout the ages.

while a linothorax(no matter if actually linnen or Leather) may not be a good choice vs swords it's flexibility provides ample protection against arrows. As seen in EB the pikes form a sort of artificial forest, thin but constantly moving trees, the arrow is no bullet aka has a substancial length and is not lightnigh fast, thus random deflection is likely. An arrow which has lost it's momentum is unlikely to pierce a helmet or the shoulderpiece of a linothorax.
While this does not make them immune to arrow fire it provided sufficient protection to get a substancial part of them into melee with Sparabara and Hoplites where their superiority is more apparent.

At least that's how I see the matter.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

The Macedonian phalanx had no other option than to march forward through a deadly hail of Persian arrow fire to reach the enemy front line. Most of the phalanx casualties came during the advance to contact, not the melee itself, although the numbers of wounded would far outnumber the dead. The Macedonians had little defence against arrows and slingshot, but once in contact the lightly armed and armoured Persians had little defence against the massed rows of pikes and would rout quickly.

Also, Persian archers and slingers were terrified of enemy cavalry and would rout as soon as it came anywhere near them. With mass panic communicating rapidly through the milling hordes of skittish light missile troops, thousands could be put to flight with a cavalry charge.

[Conan]

Does make you wonder why the Persians never really adopted some form of heavy infantry wholesale... Especially after their experience with Greek hoplites during the Greek-Persian wars. Although I suppose they simply employed them as mercenaries, which may have been quicker and/or cheaper than training there own men/units.

Mind you the way the Persian army was composed it had conquered a large chunk of the known world by this point and had kept the Ionian Greeks at bay for centuries. Their army as it was had not only conquered, but maintain the status quo and I imagine was not seen as needing re-forming until well Alexander came along and by that point it was too late!

I guess you also have to bear in mind that it wasn't a walk in the park for the Macidonian army either and that they very nearly could have lost their engagments with the Persian army. I imagine luck would have played a big part in the outcome also...

Suppose I'm answering my own questions as I carry on with this!

[seleucid empire]

Does make you wonder why the Persians never really adopted some form of heavy infantry wholesale... Especially after their experience with Greek hoplites during the Greek-Persian wars. Although I suppose they simply employed them as mercenaries, which may have been quicker and/or cheaper than training there own men/units.

Mind you the way the Persian army was composed it had conquered a large chunk of the known world by this point and had kept the Ionian Greeks at bay for centuries. Their army as it was had not only conquered, but maintain the status quo and I imagine was not seen as needing re-forming until well Alexander came along and by that point it was too late!

I guess you also have to bear in mind that it wasn't a walk in the park for the Macidonian army either and that they very nearly could have lost their engagments with the Persian army. I imagine luck would have played a big part in the outcome also...

Suppose I'm answering my own questions as I carry on with this!

They had some heavy infantry didn't they? Their Immortals would have had good armour and carry swords/spears as well as bows but they were just inferior to the Greek and Macedonian phalanx so it doesn't show.

I'm gonna take a wild guess here and speculate that they realised the advantage of heavy infantry but they probably knew that they could never hope to match the Greeks so they improved other parts of their army to level the field (e.g. Their cavalry) and hired Greek Mercs to supplement their army.

Also in the east I'm guessing heavy infantry isn't as effective as large amounts of cavalry or archers?

Actually for most of ancient history, the east seems to have been dominated by cavalry and missiles. Think of the bactrians, Parthians, Sassanids,

[Arjos]

As mentioned, he used swift tactics with his cavalry, but let's not forget about Kretikoi and Peltastai, essential for those manouvers...
Although what really was revolutionary, both with Philippos and Alexandros, were siege engines and torsion weapons: they brought siege warfare to a complete new level...

Persians had heavy infantry (both persian and from subjects, particularly good were the Sacae), these troops were actually successful against hoplitai at Marathon, for example. But as pointed out, eastern landscape, worked perfectly for mounted warfare...
But most of all, the Persian empire, was coming from a series of prolonged rebellions (Egypt, aided by Greeks most of the time, was a perennial drain of resources) and inter-satrap conflicts: as with many large polities, it was collapsing on its own weight (lack of strong rulers; court schemes and assassinations; satraps fighting eachother, either in rebellion or to gain greater favour from the Shahanshah). Also Darius III, himself wasn't exactly the best military leader one could hope for...

So in the end, taking Alexandros' campaign, he could field more heavy infantry, while the Persians had to rely on light levies and mercenaries. And Darius for one reason or another, failed to exploit his cavalry to their fullest and/or Alexandros was just a better tactician, especially of mounted warfare...

[Ca Putt]

The Acheamenid persians made great use of Greek mercenary Hoplites and also employed similar troops in smaller numbers.

Concerning the reluctance to "switch" to heavy infantry on the side of the persians probably roots in very different circumstances:
(in no particular order)

being a heavy infantry man is not pleasant. - You have to carry a heavy armor on foot, engage your enemy in melee and in case the battle turns sour, it's unlikely you'll get away, because your slow. When you're going to war you'll either want a horse(to get away quicker) or a bow(to avoid melee), unless some code of honor prohibits such cowardly conduct.

Tradition - the Bulk of the Persian Empire had either equestian or Archery Tradition, which helps a lot with recruitment of either. And as explained above and "shown"* in many games, If you can get good cavalry and archers you'll not tell your sheperds and lower nobility to get a shield and off of that horse. And the results would be subpar at best. A noble who has fought from horseback for X generations will mostlikely not make a very good hoplite. In antiquity a great part of the military education was through the father(or uncle or grandfather) and like today a boy who went hunting with his dad is morelikely to become a good marksman/soldier than one who's dad went fishing(something that is not required in todays armed forces) with him. changes like this would take several generations to yield superior heavy infantry

Population structure - While incorporating plenty large cities the Predominant recruitment pool of persians probably was based on cattle-droving seminomads OR people who have just given up this Lifestyle one or two generations ago. Some historians may actually bring up the ethernal fight between Cain and Abel, Something I'd be carefull with however. Not to say Persians had less Cities, they just had more other stuff, whereas Greece basically consists of rocks, water and settlements that consider themselves cities,... well and Tessaly.
In essence city dwelling farmers make "good" Heavy infantry, seminomadic stockbreeders make "good" archers or Cavalry(depending on wealth and terrain).

Terrain - "Persia" is mostly arid or mountainous there also are fertile regions and in antiquity there also were some forests. but most of the time you have perfect conditions for Cavalry and archers. Greece on the other hand is mostly a coastal thing with valleys placed conveniently to fight a pitched battle or two, neat for archers and shielbearers, but terrible for cavalry.


*overly pronounced

[athanaric]

Good points there.

Terrain - "Persia" is mostly arid or mountainous there also are fertile regions and in antiquity there also were some forests. but most of the time you have perfect conditions for Cavalry and archers. Greece on the other hand is mostly a coastal thing with valleys placed conveniently to fight a pitched battle or two, neat for archers and shielbearers, but terrible for cavalry.

Also, the area of the Persian Empire is a continguous (and large) landmass, even though very variable in climate and landscape. The Greek motherland OTOH practically forces its inhabitants to rely on infantry warfare, because fertile plains, while they exist, are limited in extension and have to be utilized for agriculture of all kinds (and it's phantastic to see what you can grow in places like the Eurotas valley or the Argive plain - basically everything, except rice). Not much space for horse herds of sufficient quality or quantity there. The mountains are either forested or used for other livestock or wine, olives etc (curiously, nowadays, most of them are covered with maquis or garrigue. Probably a result of over-exploitation). Also, for most regions in Greece, ships are a much faster and more efficient means of transportation than horses.


Furthermore, the formation of small (city) states* is favoured by the Greek topography, and heavy infantry is a typical military element of city states.

*Polis doesn't necessarily indicate a city.

[seleucid empire]

Furthermore, the formation of small (city) states* is favoured by the Greek topography, and heavy infantry is a typical military element of city states.

*Polis doesn't necessarily indicate a city.

This leads me to my own question.

The Greeks and Romans both had citizen armies which meant both nations were militaristic at heart.

So how come the Greeks never invented heavy sword armed infantry like the Romans and instead created the more complex phalanx? They seems to have skipped an easier option. Was it something to do with the fact that they didn't come in contact with the scutum shield?

And would the result have been the same at Thermopylae if a roman legion was there instead of the Greek phalanx

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

IIRC we had such a discussion here some years ago. I think the "result" was that the combination of "heavy" arrow proof armor, thick shields and deflection through Pikes. In addtion to swift cavalry which has proven usefull against archers throughout the ages.

while a linothorax(no matter if actually linnen or Leather) may not be a good choice vs swords it's flexibility provides ample protection against arrows. As seen in EB the pikes form a sort of artificial forest, thin but constantly moving trees, the arrow is no bullet aka has a substancial length and is not lightnigh fast, thus random deflection is likely. An arrow which has lost it's momentum is unlikely to pierce a helmet or the shoulderpiece of a linothorax.
While this does not make them immune to arrow fire it provided sufficient protection to get a substancial part of them into melee with Sparabara and Hoplites where their superiority is more apparent.

At least that's how I see the matter.

I'll supplement Ca Putt's points with one of my own.

Do note that arrows do not occupy a thin cylindrical space as they travel through the air; they tumble, bend, flex and spin in an area roughly the shape of a rugby ball- abit far larger. Imagine hundreds of rugby balls each 2 feet in length tumbling through the air, the likelihood that they get caught in the brambles of pikes or tree branches is now considerable. Also, volley-fire is never accurate anyhow. It's a matter of quantity over quality.