History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

[Flying Pig]

That may be true, but I think it's moving the goalposts a bit - if we want to talk about Renaissance art, for example, we really do have to consider David and the like. Indeed, I'd argue that Mannerism is in fact a subset of Renaissance art. It's certainly fair to say that the Renaissance represents a movement towards naturalism in art, but I don't think you can really say that it became the be-all-and-end-all - after all, the most popular subject matter was drawn not from nature, but from mythology, be it Christian or Pagan.

 

[Quackers]

Has anybody read Corelli Barnett's The Pride and Fall Sequence?
Worth it? Thoughts?

 

[CaptainLost]

I just thought of a good one: would ancient civilizations like Greece actually have big standing armies sitting in their cities like they do in CIV? If not, how did they defend their cities?

 

[sophie]

I just thought of a good one: would ancient civilizations like Greece actually have big standing armies sitting in their cities like they do in CIV?

Generally, no. Although "ancient civilizations" is an insanely broad label. You're going to need to be more specific.

If not, how did they defend their cities?

élite warrior class, or citizen military obligations, usually.

Pre-modern professional armies are exceptionally rare.

 

[GreekAnalyzer]

The first professional army was Rome. Then during Medieval times there weren't really any professional armies, until Spain and Sweden toward the 16th cent.

 

[CaptainLost]

Ok, let's say, nations or tribes around the Mediterranean from about 1500 BCE to 500 BCE.
What did they do when they were attacked? Levy a whole bunch of soldiers, or send some professional ones from the capitol, or something?

 

[GreekAnalyzer]

Levy a whole bunch of soldiers

This.

 

[gay_Aleks]

The first professional army was Rome. Then during Medieval times there weren't really any professional armies, until Spain and Sweden toward the 16th cent.

Even earlier, the Ottoman Janissaries and partially, the Spahis (who were closer to the Western knights in terms of supplying themselves).

 

[sophie]

Ok, let's say, nations or tribes around the Mediterranean from about 1500 BCE to 500 BCE.
What did they do when they were attacked? Levy a whole bunch of soldiers, or send some professional ones from the capitol, or something?

élite warrior class, or citizen military obligations, usually.

One of these.

 

[CaptainLost]

Ah, ok, all makes sense now. Thank you.

 

[GreekAnalyzer]

Even earlier, the Ottoman Janissaries and partially, the Spahis (who were closer to the Western knights in terms of supplying themselves).

Fair point.

 

[Mouthwash]

Why were the Persians incapable of winning battles during Xerxes' invasion of Greece? As far as I know, the Greeks had no counter to mounted house archers. Salamis and everything before it can be believed, but the battle of Platea can't be. Two separated, disoriented, and badly-supplied hoplite armies against a force that was like three times their numbers? And why do the Persians never seems to try and counter the hoplite, even in the century and a half after the war? It's pretty unimaginable that they wouldn't try, given that their whole foreign policy revolved around adapting and prioritizing local customs. An empire with half the world's population couldn't muster up a few thousand soldiers with iron shields?

 

[History_Buff]

• Horse archers are not a 'use me to win' button.
• The nature of the terrain in Greece almost certainly made bringing in large mounted forces a logistical nightmare, and I'd wager they didn't do it.
• Neither is the Hoplite a 'use me to win' button. Also worth keeping in mind that Alexander's army that toppled the Persian Empire was a very different beast from the formations Greeks would have used in the Persian wars.
• Probably the reason the Persians didn't succeed in conquering Greece is that they didn't care enough to put in the effort. Greece wouldn't have been valuable enough.

 

[Kyriakos]

• Horse archers are not a 'use me to win' button.
• The nature of the terrain in Greece almost certainly made bringing in large mounted forces a logistical nightmare, and I'd wager they didn't do it.
• Neither is the Hoplite a 'use me to win' button. Also worth keeping in mind that Alexander's army that toppled the Persian Empire was a very different beast from the formations Greeks would have used in the Persian wars.
• Probably the reason the Persians didn't succeed in conquering Greece is that they didn't care enough to put in the effort. Greece wouldn't have been valuable enough.

Ok, was losing in Eurymedon (470 BC, after anything in Europe was already liberated) and the rest of Ionia and Lydia also part of the Persian plan to not try to win?

Cause after that they were open to Athenian invasions to Egypt (circa 460 BC, ultimately the Athenians withrew, also due to the Peloponnesian war starting at the time).
Moreover the 10.000 Greek hoplite merceneries in Cyrus' army campaign (written about by Xenophon) seem to have been a pretty decisive force in the Persian succession war. And afaik the only Persian-lead force to not disperce following Alexander's battles was again a Greek mercenery force, which capitulated under negotiation.

 

[Mouthwash]

• Horse archers are not a 'use me to win' button.
• The nature of the terrain in Greece almost certainly made bringing in large mounted forces a logistical nightmare, and I'd wager they didn't do it.
• Neither is the Hoplite a 'use me to win' button. Also worth keeping in mind that Alexander's army that toppled the Persian Empire was a very different beast from the formations Greeks would have used in the Persian wars.
• Probably the reason the Persians didn't succeed in conquering Greece is that they didn't care enough to put in the effort. Greece wouldn't have been valuable enough.

Have you... read a book on this? Even one?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Keep in mind that the Persians either won a ton of battles or caused the Greeks to submit without fighting. They subdued Macedonia, Thessaly, and Boeotia. Then they won at Thermopylae and (arguably) Artemesium.

The loss at Salamis changed things. The size of the Persian army was scaled back significantly after that defeat because it couldn't be supplied without naval support. I suspect a lot of the army consisted of Greeks as well, who probably weren't as enthusiastic. The battle is far less studied than Marathon or Thermopylae, but I doubt it was a sure thing.

 

[Agent327]

Also, part of the Greeks were actually either neutral or fighting on the Persian side.

Ok, was losing in Eurymedon (470 BC, after anything in Europe was already liberated) and the rest of Ionia and Lydia also part of the Persian plan to not try to win?

Cause after that they were open to Athenian invasions to Egypt (circa 460 BC, ultimately the Athenians withrew, also due to the Peloponnesian war starting at the time).
Moreover the 10.000 Greek hoplite merceneries in Cyrus' army campaign (written about by Xenophon) seem to have been a pretty decisive force in the Persian succession war. And afaik the only Persian-lead force to not disperce following Alexander's battles was again a Greek mercenery force, which capitulated under negotiation.

You forgot to mention there actually were Greeks on the Persian side during the Perso-Greek wars.

Have you... read a book on this? Even one?

His answers actually make sense, though.

At any rate, much of the Persian tactics (also shown in the Alexander battles) depended on sufficiently flat terrain to deploy their large force. The primarily hilly terrain of which much of Greece consists posed a major problem here (Thermopylae being the extreme example). The same applies to their naval force, whose overwhelming numbers were negated at Salamis. The Persians occupied Athens, but lost their naval superiority and Athens wasn't sueing for peace.

What's missing from the story is the supply problem for the Persians. Keeping a large military force that far away from the Persian center would have been a logistical nightmare - and naval superiority would have been a must for it, so Salamis was a serious blow to the Persian campaign.

Seeing as the sources are all one-sided, being Greek only, the Persian point of view can, up to a point, only be educated guesswork.

 

[sophie]

Have you... read a book on this? Even one?

You realize this sort of stuff is why nobody ever bothers trying to answer any questions you ask, right?

You forgot to mention there actually were Greeks on the Persian side during the Perso-Greek wars.



His answers actually make sense, though.

What's missing from the story is the supply problem for the Persians. Keeping a large military force that far away from the Persian center would have been a logistical nightmare - and naval superiority would have been a must for it, so Salamis was a serious blow to the Persian campaign.

Seeing as the sources are all one-sided, being Greek only, the Persian point of view can, up to a point, only be educated guesswork.

Also this.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That being said, my understanding is that Plataea was a fairly flat area, no?

 

[Kyriakos]

That being said, my understanding is that Plataea was a fairly flat area, no?

Seems to also be why it was called Plataea