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

[Conan]

Hey guys,

I know this is a bit out of EB time frame but I'm sure most peeps here have a good knowledge of this time period.

Through the number of engagments Alexander army had the army of Darius III how would his phalanx and cavalry delt with the number and I imagine good quality of 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

[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.

[Marcus Darkstar]

Hey guys,

I know this is a bit out of EB time frame but I'm sure most peeps here have a good knowledge of this time period.

Through the number of engagments Alexander army had the army of Darius III how would his phalanx and cavalry delt with the number and I imagine good quality of Persian archers?

I'm not as versed as these fine fellows in Alexander's campaigns but didnt he have contingents of Cretan Archers? I know he had no where near the numbers of the Persian Archers but Alexander did have his own...

That said wasnt most of Daruis's Persian archers using a simplier bow not the compound bow which had only the range of around a hundred meters? Aint a big distance to close wtih calvary and heavy infantry. Them being peasant archer levies i doubt the average persian all had compound bows... I know better persian troops like the horse archers etc used them because their the only way you can have effective horse archers but i would give them a grade far above levies..

[moonburn]

the siege or alesia aqua sixtae the romans went on the defensive and performed great in those roles pretty well so the romans would have take the hell gates as a defensive stand just as the greeks did because it made sense it gives them time to gather more men

as for their sucess it depends alot the roman troops quality always start as zerglings if they didn´t men like africanus wouldn´t loose so much time training new recruits before going against the lusitani or the numantians

what i mean is that their equipment is the same but the troop quality varies alot depending on the quality of it´s leading men and the experience of the men composing the legions

the romans went on an atriction war with hannibal because they where out of "decent" troops and didn´t want to banalise their troops wich would have costed them their allies in italy

there´s a reason why romans put so much enphasis on their vitality and manhood without their qualities their equipment counted for litle and they knew it thats why cato and so many of the bonii where against the reforms that sulla the grachus brothers or cesar defended

[Ca Putt]

A problem I see for Pre marian Romans would be their "Campaign"-attutude towards formation. Thus they put their "lings" in the front row, while this is an excellent idea when you're constantly waging war and anticipate a certain amount of casualties it's Illsuited for "last stand" battles as Thermopylae.

While I'm pretty sure Cammilian Triarii would have preformed similar to the Greeks(like duh) and I would reckon Polybian Principes would fare OK, I'm pretty sure Republican Hastati would brake and bereft of manoeuvrebility they would go running INTO(rather than being able to retreat through their lines) the Princeps clinging to their shields, crying for mercy etc. which imho would significantly hurt the Principed morale, now being easier to brake themselves. While I consider Polybian Triarii to be inclined to get out aswell, Cammillian ones may have tried to hold out a la Leonidas. However one has to remember that:
a) these men have just witnessed their comrads flee, unlike the spartans who fought in the frontline and probably did not care so much about the Thebans, Thespians etc. as the Triarii would about their sons in law, younger brothers, neighbors etc.
b) with most of the "heavies" gone the supply of "pushers" on the roman side would have deminished to the point where the Persians would be able to just push them into the sea/against a wall.

It is to note however that the battle was not actually won, so "doing good" means to kill a lot of persians and holding out "till death" and "failing" would mean to break before killing many persians and being considered a minor inconvenience by Xerxes.

Thus I think that while a regular Army set up would result in "failure", rearrangeing ranks would let them fare "about as good" as the Greeks.

[Marcus Darkstar]

A problem I see for Pre marian Romans would be their "Campaign"-attutude towards formation. Thus they put their "lings" in the front row, while this is an excellent idea when you're constantly waging war and anticipate a certain amount of casualties it's Illsuited for "last stand" battles as Thermopylae.

While I'm pretty sure Cammilian Triarii would have preformed similar to the Greeks(like duh) and I would reckon Polybian Principes would fare OK, I'm pretty sure Republican Hastati would brake and bereft of manoeuvrebility they would go running INTO(rather than being able to retreat through their lines) the Princeps clinging to their shields, crying for mercy etc. which imho would significantly hurt the Principed morale, now being easier to brake themselves. While I consider Polybian Triarii to be inclined to get out aswell, Cammillian ones may have tried to hold out a la Leonidas. However one has to remember that:
a) these men have just witnessed their comrads flee, unlike the spartans who fought in the frontline and probably did not care so much about the Thebans, Thespians etc. as the Triarii would about their sons in law, younger brothers, neighbors etc.
b) with most of the "heavies" gone the supply of "pushers" on the roman side would have deminished to the point where the Persians would be able to just push them into the sea/against a wall.

It is to note however that the battle was not actually won, so "doing good" means to kill a lot of persians and holding out "till death" and "failing" would mean to break before killing many persians and being considered a minor inconvenience by Xerxes.

Thus I think that while a regular Army set up would result in "failure", rearrangeing ranks would let them fare "about as good" as the Greeks.

It should be noted from what i've read that experienced Roman generals like Africanus sometimes forgone the traditional manipular formations (specially having the youth up front etc) Forgoing massive reserves of replacement men to create a stronger main battle line. The 2nd Punic wars did force the romans to adopt new tactics.

[Miaow]

It should be noted from what i've read that experienced Roman generals like Africanus sometimes forgone the traditional manipular formations (specially having the youth up front etc) Forgoing massive reserves of replacement men to create a stronger main battle line. The 2nd Punic wars did force the romans to adopt new tactics.

While the manipular formation was in many instances a boon to the Romans, it was a main cause of their defeat at Cannae. The Roman narrow, deep formation made it easy for the numerically inferior Carthaginians to envelop them.

On the topic of Greeks against Persians, let's not forget that the Persians initially defeated the Greeks they met in Asia—the Ionian, Aeolian etc colonies—with relative ease, to the extent that contemporary Greek sources insist that, prior to Marathon, the Greeks essentially pissed themselves with fear at the idea of fighting Persians. That's why so few Greeks were willing to help Athens with the first invasion; only the Plataeans, who would have been enslaved by the Thebans without Athens, and the Spartans, who feared dishonour more than death, were willing to come (and only the Plataeans were there on time).

Indeed, the whole reason that the Persians were attacking Athens wasn't that they were horrible evil people intent on enslaving the "free world", but that Athens had supported its Ionian colonies in rebelling against the Persians. The Persians had crushed that Greek rebellion, and wanted to take revenge on what they saw as a foreign power meddling in their internal affairs. Well, they also wanted to conquer the whole world too, but the reason they targeted Athens when they did was that Athens had been unsuccessfully attacking them.

As to why the Persians went from beating the snot out of hoplites to having the snot beaten out of them by hoplites, one of the major reasons was cavalry—specifically the logistics of cavalry. The descriptions of some EB units reflect that effective cavalry required rather alot more horses than men, and horses are difficult at best to transport by sea. Moreover, Greece being Greece, it was very difficult for the Persians to resupply horses locally. This limited the ammount of cavalry that could be deployed in Greece, and made what cavalry was deployed very vulnerable to attrition. In the second invasion, the Persians didn't actually suffer a land defeat until well after their fleet had been beaten and the Shahanshah had left. At that point, they'd lost the capacity to bring significant ammounts of supplies or reinforcements from Asia (even assuming Xerxes had them and was willing to run the bill up even higher on what was probably the most costly operation of Achaemenid history).

The Persian military system relied heavily on cavalry; the role of the Sparabara was to form a shield wall, which was effective against opposing archers and allowed them to hold off less disciplined troops, but they weren't meant to go toe to toe with heavy infantry or hold off shock cavalry. The best defence of both sparabara and archers against enemy cavalry was the Persian cavalry's superiority. Looking through the known equipment lists of the Persian cavalry, we see maces coming up—in EB terms, AP weapons making them heavy infantry killers. Add in their bows which would have enabled the cavalry to manoeuvre and shoot the vulnerable flanks and rear of a phalanx. Alexander removed that superiority of cavalry when he came along with his even heavier cavalry, at a time when the social class providing the core of the Achaemenid cavalry was in crisis.

I wouldn't say the Persian "Immortals" were inferior to the Greek/Macedonian heavy infantry. Certainly, the Greeks/Macedonians did not make that claim. However, the "Immortals" were an elite unit, a small part of the Persian armies, whereas almost all of Hellenic armies were capable of slugging it out in a prolonged melee. Even when/if the Persian elites defeated the units in front of them, they couldn't be everywhere and the battle could still be lost—indeed, frequently was (c.f. Mardonios and his guards making a last stand while their army routed).

In Alexander's campaigns, the peltastai would have played an important role against archery as well—with shields and some body armour, open order infantry could have drawn considerable ammounts of arrows and still taken very light casualties.