Greece And Persia

[Rameses the Great]

I can always remember the Greeks beeing so afraid of hoards of Persians coming into Europe and attacking their frontier. My question is why be afraid? Many times Greeks abandoned their towns to run away when they have always beaten Persians in combat. Although the numbers of the Persians were superior in any battle against the Greek one of three things happen: the Greeks hold out for a long time and lose because of lack of men, the Persians win but lose much more men, or the Greeks win out right. If Greece was united it can easily defeat Persia.

 

Take the planned invasion by Xenophon for example. The Athenians were outnumbered, inexperienced, but since they had actual weapons and actual soldiers they won an astonishing victory. I don't know why they feared the numberical disadvantage so much. They had always put up a good fight, and won the majority fairly easily.

 

I guarantee, you will not find one article that depicts a decent Persian victory against the Greeks without the above mentioned.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

If Greece was united it can easily defeat Persia.

 

Hm...that might be just my answer. Seriously, we see this happen with the simple example with Lacedaimonians kai Athenaios. Though those Greeks can withstand the Persians, they couldn't just live with each other= major weakness.

[M. Porcius Cato]

If the Persians were no match for the Greeks, how did the Persians manage to overrun the Greeks in Asia Minor?

[phil25]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

Read books on World War II these days and there is often some suggestion that Hitler and germany were bound to lose eventually for various reasons. That was NOT how things were perceived at the time - even if true.

 

Greek victory against Persia was never a foregone conclusion from Marathon to Alexander.

 

There is an excellent book on this subject - Persian Fire, by Tom Holland. Very readable and recently out in UK as a p/back.

 

Phil

[Julius Ratus]

In Greece, the Persians were unable to field their two most effective arms, the cavalry and the chariotry. The only reason Alexander was able to beat the Persians was because Macedonia had arguably the best Cavalry in all of Greece (the Thessalians and Boetians came close). The 10,000 mercenaries under Klearchus and later Xenophon were unable to win the civil war for Cyrus and were forced to fight their way back to Greece, so there is one Persian vistory over Greeks.

 

edit: spelling

Edited October 4, 2006 by Julius Ratus

[Leonida]

There is an excellent book on this subject - Persian Fire, by Tom Holland. Very readable and recently out in UK as a p/back.

 

Phil

 

Seconded - if you like this period of history, Holland's work is a must have!

[DecimusCaesar]

Another reason for the Persian loss is that many of their troops were inexperienced and had been ordered from their homes to fight in a distant land against an enemy they never heard of. The Greeks often had superior training and were often better armed than the auxillaries used by the Persian King. This does not mean that the Persians had an inferior army, but at Marathon the Greeks attacked the weak inexperienced flank of the Persian army, causing it too collapse. This panicked the Veterans of the Persian army who were just as well armed and trained as the Greek Hoplites. It is certainly true that the Persians on their one territory had a much more diverse army. They could field armies with chariots, archers, cavalry and even war elephants. The Greeks at the time depended on their heavily armed and armoured infantry.

 

We can only guess at what might have happened if the Persians would have been able to unleash their entire forces on Greece.

[Rameses the Great]

The armies of Persia, elephants, chariots I understand. Their infantry seemed inferior and even their best ranks can't combine to Spartans or crack phalanx much less! The Persians controlled the sea so they could have taken what they wanted with all the time they needed. In some battles the full scaled Persian army had difficulty defeating a city state militia of phalanx.

 

If the Persians were so determined and dreamed of controlling the Greeks why didn't they do it? If they had the cavalry and elephants they could transport them to Greece without opposition. No matter how many lands the Persians conquered it seemed they did not have a strong backbone. They only had flexibility and mostly shear numbers in my opinion.

 

Persian army: Quanity not Quality

Greek army: Quality not Quantity

[DecimusCaesar]

In many battles the Persians did not have a chance to use the chariots or cavalry (even if they had brought them over) as Greek terrain was often unsuited for it, too much hills and not enough flat terrain (note: King Darius at Gaugamela in Iraq sending his army to level the desert floor so his chariots could move unhindered...didn't work though).

 

It is true that the vast majority of Persian troops were no match for the Greek Hoplites, but some of King's own soldiers were very good warriors. Still, this lack of good Persian infantry might have led to the Persian King of Kings recruting Greek mercenaries into his armies (like Memnon of Rhodes during Alexander's day).

[Aurelianus]

The armies of Persia, elephants, chariots I understand. Their infantry seemed inferior and even their best ranks can't combine to Spartans or crack phalanx much less! The Persians controlled the sea so they could have taken what they wanted with all the time they needed.

 

Phalanxes were every cavalry units worst nightmare, because no horse, well, very few horses have suicidal tendencies, and charging headlong onto a row of spikes is a very good way to commit suicide. Of course there are the flanks etc, but if the infantry is well deployed then the cavalry will be ineffectual.

The Persians did not always control the seas, for instance at Thermopylae the Athenian fleet managed neutralise the Persian one.

[M. Porcius Cato]

If the Persians were so determined and dreamed of controlling the Greeks why didn't they do it?

 

They did. In Asia Minor.

[Rameses the Great]

They did. In Asia Minor.

 

Did they really care about Asia Minor though? I'm sure if they put effort into trying to protect it, the result would have been different.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I assure you that the Greeks--especially the Athenians--cared about Asia Minor a great deal.

[Andrew Dalby]

I assure you that the Greeks--especially the Athenians--cared about Asia Minor a great deal.

 

How's this for a historical parallel?

 

After Salamis, the Persians decided that trying to control Greece and the Balkans was a waste of effort. Those little states were not very rich anyway, so there would not be much tax income; and the Persians already had power over the Greek cities of Asia Minor, which were richer and very civilized. So they left Europe alone.

 

After the Teutoburger Wald, the Romans decided that trying to control Germany was a waste of effort. Those little tribes were not very rich anyway, so there would not be much tax income; and the Romans already had power over the Celts, southwest of the Rhine, who were richer and more civilized. So they left Germany alone.

 

What happened later? The Greeks and Macedonians took over the Persian Empire; the Germanic tribes took over the Western Roman Empire.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Oh, nice one, Andrew! Hadn't thought of that one before. Do you think there's a rule here, or is it just a remarkable coincidence?