Were the Persians historically really that bad at fighting?

[[*UNITY*]_ james]

Now, the Persian Empire under the Achaemenids doesn't exactly have the best reputation in the Western popular mind to begin with, what with its association with stereotyped Eastern mysticism and despotism (i.e. 300), but I just want to focus particularly on its fighting force. Were the Persians, historically speaking, really that suck-ish at warfare?

I mean, at first glance, it is easy to see why. They couldn't conquer the underdogs of Greece nor come to terms with a young Macedonian upstart, so its almost convenient to pass them off as the Italians or the French of antiquity. Yet, I am not entirely satisfied with that conclusion. Something feels missing. Its almost too simple.

Obviously its not some racial thing or anything, that Persians had/have (or people of the Middle East in general) a propensity for being cowardly or unskilled in war.

Nor do I think it was simply a matter of hordes of Persians dressed in pijamas blindly charging frontally at a Greek line, with far superior armor and weapons (sort of like the Aztecs vs. the Spanish). The rebellious Ionians in Asia Minor had similar tactics and equipment to their brethren in their ancestral homeland, yet they were crushed with relative ease by the Persians.

But that consistent Persian streak of defeat after defeat in their wars against the Greeks/Macedonians still has to be explained, so where is it coming from? Leadership? Morale? Logistics? Why did the Greeks somehow always turned out good military commanders, but not so much from the Persians? Did their system not allow for merit? Then how come no one tried to reform it?

And when the Persians did achieve success regardless of foe, was it really always a case of numbers, or were there at times actual competence, skill, tactical prowess, and/or bravery behind the Persians? They had an empire, after all: it had to come from somewhere. They shouldn't have had a whole lot of manpower available when starting to expand.

So what are your thoughts on this? Is there anything at all that might possibly somewhat salvage their fighting reputation or at least excuse them?

[New Caesar]

It’s the leaders involved on both sides. The Persians were typically lead by poor commanders who were either overconfident or underskilled. I recommend watching the YouTube channel, BazBattles and their series on Alexander the Great. Tactics and strategy brought the Persian Empire through the form of Cyrus and some of his successors and enemies with better tactics and strategy brought it down.

[Shaman Chief Nyima]

The main problem with the Persian Empire was the fact that Persia was already having many internal problems that needed to be delt with (Egypt and Greeks in Asia Minor, ect....). It also does not help that tactics and strategy was clearly lacking for everyone until the Peloponnesian wars (for the greeks). So armies relied much on formations and morale when it came to wars. And Greek hoplites had a much more dense formation that is able to push and break any enemy formation, Greek and/or Persian alike.

By the time Alexander the Great came about, he had a hard time in Asia Minor, but after that, the Persian army served their entire empire on a plate for him. Not only did Alexander have a good understanding of warfare, he also had the right army for it. An army where not even the Greeks could defeat! Strong shock cavalry, stalward infantry, and tough and rought skirmishers and light infantry.

Still, i would not consider Alexander the "greatest" commander for the Greek people. Ill leave that to Pyrrhus of Epirus (IN MY OPINION!).

[Centur1on01]

In 'Carnage and Culture,' Victor David Hanson argues that it was because the GreekS were defending personal property and it was tHeir freedom over the PersIans that gave Them the edge. This argument also sound like American propagand.

[Ashina]

The Position of the Persians is the answers.
in the East,there's alot of open ground,and sometimes it's hot af,so the Persians uses the Mobile Warfare of Light Units,since Having a Fully Armored Soldiers is just not worth it.
But when Persians tried to invade greece,the Greek lands is enclosed by alot of mountains,and flat battlefields are very rare,and since the Greek Lands Temperature is quite Cool,there will be some heavily armored Soldiers.
and also note that the Persians could just hire some Greek Mercenaries,especially from Thebes in the Greco-Persian wars.

Alexander could easilly beat the Persians because of one thing,his army is very Versatile.While Other Greek may have a good Hoplite,Macedonian are Decent in all things they do.
Infantry?
3-5 row of Pikeman can cover alot more land in a battle,while you need alot of Hoplites to cover those area,in a standard 8 men Deep Phalanx.
Alexander also have those Hypaspist(Combat Peltast) in the flanks to deal with some flanking infantry when the cavalry aren't suited for the job.
Missiles?
Cretan Archers,and Rhodian Slingers.
Cavalry?
Sarrisa,Thessalian,and Companion Cav already put persian Cavalry into shame.

[Hydra]

Alexander was a truly exceptional general. At nearly every battle he fought he founded some groundbreaking new tactic that is still studied to this day, and many of these were further enhancements of strategies devised by his father Philip II, who in turn adapted the teachings of the Theban general Epamimondas. In addition to this, the Macedonian military was among the first to properly use 'combined arms', meaning they had highly specialised and well-drilled units fulfilling specific battlefield roles, most famously their heavy companion cavalry and pezhetairoi phalanx blocks. So you see, the Macedonians were not your average opponent. They were similar to the Romans in that they would take ideas that worked from other militaries and adapt them to fit their strategy. The evolution of the Greek hoplite into the Macedonians phalanx and the Scythian flying wedge into Macedonian cavalry tactics are good examples of this.

So even though the Persians vastly outnumbered Alexander, they were on the back foot from the beginning in terms of military technology and strategic vision. Their commanders could draw on diverse troops from across a diverse empire, which on the surface sounds good because options equal opportunity, but in fact the lack of unity such an army would suffer often lead to a lack of cohesion. The Persian infantry was on the whole completely inferior to the Macedonian infantry both in terms of weaponry and training, and many of the Persians 'best' assets such as their chariots became little more than party tricks after Alexander developed simple but effective strategies to deal with them.

Though with all this said, the Persians easily had the capacity to neutralise Alexander. They could have cut his supply lines with their navy, used their vast wealth to ship mercenaries into Greece and start an uprising at his backdoor, and had a slash and burn policy in Asia Minor and slowly wittled him down with a guerilla war. Instead they allowed their mighty navy to be completely sidelined and met him in a ridiculous engagement at the Granicus which gave all the momentum to an otherwise foolish-looking invasion.

The Persians did not lose for lack of resources. They lost because the Macedonians had drive, discipline, hunger, and a fanastic strategic vision coupled with decades of meticulous military advancement. The Persian empire, had its eye been on the ball, could have thwarted this invasion, but they had become complacent, decadent, disunited and corrupt, and so natural selection kicked in.

[dark_horse_spirit]

War is written by the victors, not to take anything away from Alexander but as we no from modern conflicts it does not take long to erase history and rewrite your own,

The Coalition invasion of Iraq is a good example, the propoganda involved has somehow in, almost 20 short years made "desert storm " out to be the savior of our times, those of us old enough to remember the actual day to day media will remember something different.

Its my opinion that the Persian Empire was managed to serve only the elite, much like the egyptian dynasties. An Empire driven by the power of wealth at the expense of supressed poverty striken populace praying for change. Persia imploded and Alexander was in the right place at the right time to exploit the needy and the weak. eg...It is a historicle fact that Davey Crocket had never been east of the Mississipi...let alone the Alamo. Davey crocket was born in a time that a new upstart nation needed a hero, so they just made one. If Persia was so rotton in war how did they become and Empire in the first place, think about it.

[Fang]

Absolutely not. They had a military system designed by them just like the Romans eventually did (regiments of a thousand each, called hazarabam, ten hazarabams are called a haivarabam). They used tried-and-true tactics (Archers skirmish the enemy before the melee, cavalry charges to mop up the scattered survivors). The common tactic employed by the Persians in the early period of the empire, was to form a shield wall that archers could fire over.

The lack of strong body protection was a major weakness in the Persian military and was a major factor in their defeat in the Persian War. They were equipped almost entirely with linen, not bronze or other heavy armor (except for a limited number of Immortals). They wore little armor because of the middle-eastern heat. The Greek troops were far better equipped despite both sides being well-trained.

Oh, and maybe you'll want to give this topic a read? twcenter[www.twcenter.net]

[Ashina]

Originally posted by Fang:

Absolutely not. They had a military system just like the Romans (regiments of a thousand each, called hazarabam, ten hazarabams are called a haivarabam). They used tried-and-true tactics (Archers skirmish the enemy before the melee). The common tactic employed by the Persians in the early period of the empire, was to form a shield wall that archers could fire over.

The lack of strong body protection was a major weakness in the Persian military and was a major factor in their defeat in the Persian War. They were equipped almost entirely with linen, not bronze or other heavy armor (except for a limited number of Immortals).

Most Hoplites uses Linothorax Armors,which is just hardened Linens.
but in Armor they do look inferior,probably due to the hot climate or the open grounds in the east.
the only Speciality of the persians is their Cavalry,but once their cavalry are useless (Marathon where they can't deploy cavalry,Hot Gates,where Cavalry doesn't do well in choke points,and Facing Alexander's Superior Cavalry.)The other component Persian army is just too weak to finish off the enemy,and thus is the reason why Persians always loses against the Western factions,but are able to beat their neighbors.

also in the Government side of things,Persians actually don't really have many slaves to make their economy,and army(Screw you Spartans),and their Army is actually suplemented from the able citizen,willingly to serve the army,much like the Romans after Marian Reform.

[Mulqueeny]

Alexander defeated them because he had vastly superior tactics and better trained men.

Most of the persian infantry were conscripted plebs and cavalry don't do too well against macedonian Pike Phalanx :D

[Shaman Chief Nyima]

Originally posted by Fang:

. They wore little armor because of the middle-eastern heat. The Greek troops were far better equipped despite both sides being well-trained.]

I dont think middle easterns used light armor because of the heat. It is mentioned many times that heat tires the armored soldier, but despite this, the middle east gives way to the rise of heavily armored horsemen. Even to the time of the Crusades, men are still wearing heavy armor with even padding! (Just an interesting thing i wanted to point out)

Without uniformity and standardisation like Rome or China, the ancient greek soldiers had to provide for themselves, and because of this, Greek hoplites are not as armored as both pop culture and ancient art likes to depict. I dont doubt the strength of a Hoplite Phalanx, but the Greeks real strength comes from the Hoplite Phalanx, not their armor.

[TruculentTonka]

Lots of insight provided, but certainly the known world was rather unprepared for the total war Alexander and the Macedonians represented: drilled heavy infantry, dynamic shock cavalry and superb articulation, led by a certainly fearless, perhaps deeply pathological commander.

Alexander-taught by Aristotle, who'd been taught by Plato, who'd been taught by the greatest philosopher Socrates-fullfilled the Greek hegemonist's nationalist dream of revenge against Persia and spreading Greek culture as far as possible (though it was admittedly a limited Greek), but as it turned out, Alexander himself was deeply touched by the world's variety and diversity of culture and so much in fact that he would never return to Greece.

The Persians may have grown decadent and mired in vice (something frowed upon by Romans and Alexander early on), but they had accomplished a singularly unique thing up to that point (and astoundingly and dissappointingly a neglected area by the TW franchise):truly an expansive polyglot, pantheistic and impressively tolerant international empire in character, such an extraordinary accomplishment that none other than the brilliant Xenophon would come to celebrate and study. In fact the troubled and traumatized Alexander would be at first dazzled then come to not only admire but to adopt just those qualities. Perhaps this factored into his ability to keep relative peace while he lived, and his soldiers remained largely loyal, itself astounding in the ancient world.

His miltary victories however were peerless-Granicus, Hydaspes, Gaugamela, etc-so much so that the inimitable Hannibal of Carthage ranked the very human Alexander as the greatest general of all time.

So perhaps the question might be reframed as what made Alexander's force so great?
I

[Fang]

Originally posted by Shaman Chief Nyima:

Originally posted by Fang:

. They wore little armor because of the middle-eastern heat. The Greek troops were far better equipped despite both sides being well-trained.]

I dont think middle easterns used light armor because of the heat. It is mentioned many times that heat tires the armored soldier, but despite this, the middle east gives way to the rise of heavily armored horsemen. Even to the time of the Crusades, men are still wearing heavy armor with even padding! (Just an interesting thing i wanted to point out)

Without uniformity and standardisation like Rome or China, the ancient greek soldiers had to provide for themselves, and because of this, Greek hoplites are not as armored as both pop culture and ancient art likes to depict. I dont doubt the strength of a Hoplite Phalanx, but the Greeks real strength comes from the Hoplite Phalanx, not their armor.

Sources on the Persian army are remarkably scarce, especially their doctrines. I did paraphrase a lot of different sources, among them the notion that middle-eastern heat is the reason for their lighter armor.

Regarding the crusaders, plate mail was quite rare among them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4mcq1f/how_did_heavily_armored_knights_handle_the_heat/

Whatever the case, as the person above me said the Hoplite Phalanx, and perhaps more importantly the Hoplite's mentality (almost bloodthirsty) and discipline were important factors.

[bbolto]

Worth noting that the Achaemenid Persian empire was no slouch at all – as far as we know it was the largest empire the world had seen up until Alexander conquered it. But, as mentioned, the Macedonians brought a lot of organizational, disciplinary and tactical inventions to the field of warfare which allowed them to succeed.

[Haddon]

Originally posted by Fang:

Originally posted by Shaman Chief Nyima:

I dont think middle easterns used light armor because of the heat. It is mentioned many times that heat tires the armored soldier, but despite this, the middle east gives way to the rise of heavily armored horsemen. Even to the time of the Crusades, men are still wearing heavy armor with even padding! (Just an interesting thing i wanted to point out)

Without uniformity and standardisation like Rome or China, the ancient greek soldiers had to provide for themselves, and because of this, Greek hoplites are not as armored as both pop culture and ancient art likes to depict. I dont doubt the strength of a Hoplite Phalanx, but the Greeks real strength comes from the Hoplite Phalanx, not their armor.

Sources on the Persian army are remarkably scarce, especially their doctrines. I did paraphrase a lot of different sources, among them the notion that middle-eastern heat is the reason for their lighter armor.

Regarding the crusaders, plate mail was quite rare among them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4mcq1f/how_did_heavily_armored_knights_handle_the_heat/

Whatever the case, as the person above me said the Hoplite Phalanx, and perhaps more importantly the Hoplite's mentality (almost bloodthirsty) and discipline were important factors.

Plate would have been almost non-existent for the majority of Crusaders. The very earliest plate of the period comes up more like 13th century, and isn't in large-scale use until the mid-14th.

And the real strength of Hoplites comes from the Holpon, their shield. Hence being named for it. Just like Romans, their shield was their primary line of defense, and combined with a phalanx, it is very effective at defense.

And the Persians didn't repeatedly lose to the Greeks; they won far more than they lost. The battles they did lose, like Marathon and Platea, were due to Persia being unable to use all of their forces (with Marathon is was a somewhat small operation, with Platea Xerxes had already left with a huge portion of his army).

[Mithras Invictus]

The vast majority of the Persian defeats and "Pyrrhic" victories were due to the initial shock of dealing with the new tactics employed by the greeks. The phalanx was a new invention, and the Greeks constantly battled eachother perfecting it. The Persians likely did not recognize its usefulness immediately after the Ionian revolts because of how easily they had dealt with them, but then had problems dealing with the better equipped and more warlike mainlanders. Also, it should be noted that with the exception of Xenophon's Anabasis (which itself is as much an adventure story as it is a history) the Persians did not have the same level problems fighting the Greeks after the initial Greco-Persian wars, and even defeated the Macedonian Army under Phillip II in Thrace shortly before his death, driving him out of the country and preventing him from marshalling the Greek city-states to support his invasion. Honestly, Persian infantry inferiority is probably mostly from Greek and later Roman propaganda, as the Persian war machine successfully engaged and defeated many militaries against whom the Greeks failed, and had a considerable history of success against their powerful contemporaries, including oftentimes the Greeks themselves.