History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

[Ajidica]

Unless I'm badly remembering what little I know of ancient military organization, the Persians did have 'heavy infantry' in the sense that they had large blocks of spearmen backed up archers using what we today would call indirect fire. Sure, the Greek hoplites were a bit heavier armored but I doubt that was the main reason for their success against the Persians. I would chalk it up to a combination of the following:
>military style better suited for the terrain
>stronger morale (they were after all fighting at home)
>>also, after a few setbacks the Persians decided it simply wasn't worth the effort.
>better logistics
>luck

 

[Masada]

It's an interesting question. So far as I can tell, the Immortals, fought in much the same style and used much the same equipment (Hdt. 7.61) and could be expected to hold their own against Greek hoplites (Hdt 9.63). So it isn't true to say that the Persians didn't have heavy infantry, it's just that they didn't make up the bulk of the Persian army. Interestingly, the immortals formation, comprised of ten-thousand fighting men, was much larger than what most city-states could expect to field. It also needs to be remembered that the Persians had other formations that fought as heavy infantry, including Greek mercenaries, aristocratic formations e.g. the Apple Bearers while the contingents form Mesopotamia and Egypt were supposed to be armored. So the Persian army at any given time had a lot of armored troops, it's just those troops didn't make up the bulk of their forces.

The men who served in the army were the following: the Persians were equipped in this way: they wore on their heads loose caps called tiaras, and on their bodies embroidered sleeved tunics, with scales of iron like the scales of fish in appearance, and trousers on their legs; for shields they had wicker bucklers, with quivers hanging beneath them; they carried short spears, long bows, and reed arrows, and daggers that hung from the girdle by the right thigh.

Where Mardonius was himself, riding a white horse in the battle and surrounded by a thousand picked men who were the flower of the Persians, there they pressed their adversaries hardest. So long as Mardonius was alive the Persians stood their ground and defended themselves, overthrowing many Lacedaemonians. [2] When, however, Mardonius was killed and his guards, who were the strongest part of the army, had also fallen, then the rest too yielded and gave ground before the men of Lacedaemon. For what harmed them the most was the fact that they wore no armor over their clothes and fought, as it were, naked against men fully armed.

luck

This, a lot. At Gaugamela, the Persian right nearly crushed the Makedonian left while the Makedonian right was hard-pressed for much of the battle. Had the horse who broke through the Greek left, turned on the phalanxes rather than looting the camp, the battle might well have ended differently. As it was, the horse was scattered by the reserve and the gap in the Greek lines wasn't exploited.

 

[Kyriakos]

That's not an apt comparison. Raising large numbers of native horse archers requires a lot of cultural and material resources, such as large numbers of people who are raised riding and shooting. For that, you need lots of horses and lots of people who have both horses and the time and inclination to practice horse archery for a good decade or two.

The Athenians were never a horse-centric nomadic people, and did not possess all that many horses. Compared to the Persians and steppe nomads, their cultures of riding, archery, and horse archery were pretty weak. Greek culture at this time doesn't seem to have emphasized archery; sure, you get leftovers of earlier culture, like Mycenean culture, that valued archery, what with Herakles and Philoctetus being great archers, but that time had long since passed.

Fighting as heavy infantry, on the other hand, requires a functioning body, some weapons, and most likely a shield and some kind of decent armor. The Persians already had large infantry armies, and they certainly had the resources to equip a good number of them as heavy infantry. But they didn't.

Possibly it was because the empire allowed subject peoples to fight in their own style, and most of their satrapies focused on skirmishers, light infantry, or cavalry rather than heavy infantry. Perhaps they thought that it wasn't worth equipping heavy infantry just to fight one specific group of enemies whom they thought they could beat anyway. But these excuses are kinda weak. Persian infantry (especially the Immortals) certainly did engage in a lot of close combat where good shields and armor could've helped. The inclinations of non-Persian peoples might not have mattered if the Persian emperors had just better equipped their Immortals or created their own royal corps of armored infantry. And the Greeks' repeated victories against the Persians should have shown that Persian infantry were rather lacking.

Maybe the Persians just didn't suffer enough defeats over a long enough timespan to realize the need for heavy infantry. The later Sassanids had heavy infantry, but their situation was different. The Achaemenid Persian emperors were indisputably the most powerful sovereigns in their part of the world, and possibly in the whole world. They were used to victories and had few major enemies until Alexander. The Sassanids, on the other hand, had to fight the more powerful Roman Empire for over three centuries, over the course of which they gradually mastered siege warfare and got heavy infantry. They weren't as powerful as the Achaemenids, so they may have seen the need to adopt any techniques and technology that could have helped.

But I dunno. Knowing that your lightly- or unarmored footmen with cane shields get massacred by heavy infantry, and then not doing anything about it, seems like trouble.

Worth noting the entirely established fact (mentioned in loads of concurrent, mid 5th century texts such as theatrical plays or dialogues by Plato) that Athens paid Scythians to serve as an archer 'police' force in the city. I suppose it was a better deal than trying to train home troops in archery when the culture no longer hailed archers as brave or war-tested.
Besides, Athens obviously had commercial ties to the Scythian world, with the grain imported from the Black sea Greek colonies and inland of other peoples.

 

[Tahuti]

Worth noting the entirely established fact (mentioned in loads of concurrent, mid 5th century texts such as theatrical plays or dialogues by Plato) that Athens paid Scythians to serve as an archer 'police' force in the city. I suppose it was a better deal than trying to train home troops in archery when the culture no longer hailed archers as brave or war-tested.
Besides, Athens obviously had commercial ties to the Scythian world, with the grain imported from the Black sea Greek colonies and inland of other peoples.

Trade with Poland was important as well, as it always was. During the battle of Thermopylae, the Persians used Polish mercenaries. And Poles contributed a number of Greek plays. 'Polis' actually came from 'Polish', when the majority of inhabitants were still Polish metoikos.

Moderator Action: Infracted for spam.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Kyriakos]

Trade with Poland was important as well, as it always was. During the battle of Thermopylae, the Persians used Polish mercenaries. And Poles contributed a number of Greek plays. 'Polis' actually came from 'Polish', when the majority of inhabitants were still Polish metoikos.

I know all that but it is more advanced level and few here would see the significance underlined..

Furthermore: Lithuania obviously comes from the Greek for Stone (Lithos) and Boredom/madness (Ania). Clearly the people there were dumb as stones

 

[Agent327]

Trade with Poland was important as well, as it always was. During the battle of Thermopylae, the Persians used Polish mercenaries. And Poles contributed a number of Greek plays. 'Polis' actually came from 'Polish', when the majority of inhabitants were still Polish metoikos.

You are aware that there was no such thing as 'Poland' during the 5th-4th centuries BC? (Nor for several centuries AD, for that matter.)

 

[say1988]

You are aware that there was no such thing as 'Poland' during the 5th-4th centuries BC? (Nor for several centuries AD, for that matter.)

Pretty sure he was making fun of Domen and other Polish ultranationalists.

 

[Mouthwash]

Let the man have his fun.

 

[Agent327]

Well, you can never be sure... he seems to have some weird ideas about history...

 

[Agent327]

Okay then:

 

[Flying Pig]

I suppose to an extent one must work it backwards; the fact that the Persians never equipped a native corps of heavy infantry or recruited Greeks in greater numbers suggests that they didn't view the arms disparity as the problem with their campaigns in Greece. I would, however, be inclined to distrust Herodotus when he claims that the Greeks won battles through bouts of good luck - good luck to the ancients was a sign of divine favour, so to be lucky in battle meant that one's cause was just, while to win through 'mere' superiority of arms was less noble. There's an interesting case in one of Cicero's speeches in which he contrasts Pompey with the other Roman generals, claiming that he is the better choice to lead a campaign because all of their achievements were through skill at arms and courage, while his were through good fortune.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Herodotus also mentions that the Athenian runer to Sparta (Pheidipides, the one who run to ask for Spartan help in Marathon, but was turned down due to the festivities there etc) was met in Arcadia by the god Pan, who complained that Athenians have no temple dedicated to him, although he will help them win the battle by instilling Panic on the Persians

 

[Phrossack]

It's an interesting question. So far as I can tell, the Immortals, fought in much the same style and used much the same equipment (Hdt. 7.61) and could be expected to hold their own against Greek hoplites (Hdt 9.63). So it isn't true to say that the Persians didn't have heavy infantry, it's just that they didn't make up the bulk of the Persian army. Interestingly, the immortals formation, comprised of ten-thousand fighting men, was much larger than what most city-states could expect to field. It also needs to be remembered that the Persians had other formations that fought as heavy infantry, including Greek mercenaries, aristocratic formations e.g. the Apple Bearers while the contingents form Mesopotamia and Egypt were supposed to be armored. So the Persian army at any given time had a lot of armored troops, it's just those troops didn't make up the bulk of their forces.

Interesting sources. I recalled the Immortals being said to wear scale cuirasses. But even then they were outmatched by the best Greek hoplites, who had helmets with faceguards, large, heavy wooden shields, bronze breast- and backplates, and greaves. Even the Immortals seemed to lack so much as helmets. Their wicker shields were light and able to parry blows and stop arrows and sling bullets, but probably weren't too effective against spear thrusts. Greek spears were significantly longer than Persian spears, and their swords outmatched the Persian akinakes, which was basically a long dagger. True, your average hoplite didn't necessarily have much armor beyond a helmet, if that, but their emphasis on close combat of phalanxes, and their suitable equipment, were more than a match for lighter Persian troops.

What were the sources on these Mesopotamian and Egyptian armored infantry? I don't really know much about this part of history.

 

[Merkava120]

Let me try throwing in my little bit I have (feel free to tear down if you like ):
Could the Persians' lack of heavy infantry be a result of arrogance? A sort of "oh our amazing immortals will kick the tushies out of those whiny Greeks" and thus not recognizing a need for heavy infantry?

Also, quick question: when someone says "Persians" is that referring to just Parthia or Sassanids, Achaemenids, & all the others as well?

 

[Phrossack]

Let me try throwing in my little bit I have (feel free to tear down if you like ):
Could the Persians' lack of heavy infantry be a result of arrogance? A sort of "oh our amazing immortals will kick the tushies out of those whiny Greeks" and thus not recognizing a need for heavy infantry?

Also, quick question: when someone says "Persians" is that referring to just Parthia or Sassanids, Achaemenids, & all the others as well?

I'm using "Persians" to refer to the Achaemenids here, since I'm discussing the Achaemenid military. The Sassanids were also a Persian dynasty and got called Persian as well. Dunno if the Parthians were called Persians; originally, they were an Iranic steppe people related to the Persians, but since they conquered the area and ruled over large amounts of Persians, they may have been called that as well.

 

[Merkava120]

I'm using "Persians" to refer to the Achaemenids here, since I'm discussing the Achaemenid military. The Sassanids were also a Persian dynasty and got called Persian as well. Dunno if the Parthians were called Persians; originally, they were an Iranic steppe people related to the Persians, but since they conquered the area and ruled over large amounts of Persians, they may have been called that as well.

Ok, thanks.

 

[Kyriakos]

^The Sassanids couldn't even bother to build their own capital and so used Ctesiphon (founded either by Alexander or Seleucos/Antigonos)

Julian saw to it that the (roman) Empire lost that place for good, including most of the rest of mesopotamia.

 

[Phrossack]

^The Sassanids couldn't even bother to build their own capital and so used Ctesiphon (founded either by Alexander or Seleucos/Antigonos)

Julian saw to it that the (roman) Empire lost that place for good, including most of the rest of mesopotamia.

These are the dudes who sacked Antioch, then built a copy of it inhabited with its captured citizens. Don't talk sass to the Sass.

 

[Mouthwash]

That's not an apt comparison. Raising large numbers of native horse archers requires a lot of cultural and material resources, such as large numbers of people who are raised riding and shooting. For that, you need lots of horses and lots of people who have both horses and the time and inclination to practice horse archery for a good decade or two.

The Athenians were never a horse-centric nomadic people, and did not possess all that many horses. Compared to the Persians and steppe nomads, their cultures of riding, archery, and horse archery were pretty weak. Greek culture at this time doesn't seem to have emphasized archery; sure, you get leftovers of earlier culture, like Mycenean culture, that valued archery, what with Herakles and Philoctetus being great archers, but that time had long since passed.

Fighting as heavy infantry, on the other hand, requires a functioning body, some weapons, and most likely a shield and some kind of decent armor. The Persians already had large infantry armies, and they certainly had the resources to equip a good number of them as heavy infantry. But they didn't.

Possibly it was because the empire allowed subject peoples to fight in their own style, and most of their satrapies focused on skirmishers, light infantry, or cavalry rather than heavy infantry. Perhaps they thought that it wasn't worth equipping heavy infantry just to fight one specific group of enemies whom they thought they could beat anyway. But these excuses are kinda weak. Persian infantry (especially the Immortals) certainly did engage in a lot of close combat where good shields and armor could've helped. The inclinations of non-Persian peoples might not have mattered if the Persian emperors had just better equipped their Immortals or created their own royal corps of armored infantry. And the Greeks' repeated victories against the Persians should have shown that Persian infantry were rather lacking.

Maybe the Persians just didn't suffer enough defeats over a long enough timespan to realize the need for heavy infantry. The later Sassanids had heavy infantry, but their situation was different. The Achaemenid Persian emperors were indisputably the most powerful sovereigns in their part of the world, and possibly in the whole world. They were used to victories and had few major enemies until Alexander. The Sassanids, on the other hand, had to fight the more powerful Roman Empire for over three centuries, over the course of which they gradually mastered siege warfare and got heavy infantry. They weren't as powerful as the Achaemenids, so they may have seen the need to adopt any techniques and technology that could have helped.

But I dunno. Knowing that your lightly- or unarmored footmen with cane shields get massacred by heavy infantry, and then not doing anything about it, seems like trouble.

Actually, I recall from EB that there was some sort of Persian imitation of a hoplite. Apparently, it wasn't very successful.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Just a note about a mistake i posted: Ctesiphon was of course a Sassanid capital, but it was near Seleukia and not the capital used in the 1rst century AD by a Persian (or Parthian, at the time) kingdom that was originally founded by Seleucos (and tied to Alexander as well), the latter being Ekatombylos

Ekatombylos likely was far more to the east than Ctesiphon, the former in today's Iran, the latter just north of Babylon.