Inferiority of middle eastern militaries in the ancient world?

[|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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Lazy O]

Double post.

[Catiline]

Ok, show me 1 Achaemenid victory. Just one.

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

[Lazy O]

I demand a list. Please? :P

[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?

[|Sith|DarthRoach]

IIRC the puppet king ruled Parthia for 4 years.


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

[johnhughthom]

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

[Catiline]

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.

[Hax]

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.

We all know no middle eastern

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

(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?

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

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.

[|Sith|DarthRoach]

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

[Kagemusha]

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

[Arjos]

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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."

[|Sith|DarthRoach]

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.

[Kagemusha]

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.

[Lazy O]

His question was regarding ancients specifically

[Prince Cobra]

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.

[Kagemusha]

Here is a quote from the original post:

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 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.

[Beskar]

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.

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)

[johnhughthom]

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. You should be able to pick up Herodotus anywhere for buttons.

[Hax]

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.

[|Sith|DarthRoach]

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?