WI: Achaemenid Army Reform Post Marathon

[Tyrann Philip II]

Now, before we begin the regular Persian infantry was not all terrible and useless as portrayed in the 300 films, but then again it wasn't all that great against Greeks. The main reason they suffered horrid casualties at Marathon was in part thanks to Militiades' brilliance, but the Persians had been used to fighting poor hill peoples of the far east, and therefore were horribly outclassed by the far superior Greek hoplites.

So, what if in preparation for the Second invasion of Greece, Xerxes decides to actually do some research and planning, and improves the standard Sparabara (Your average Persian infantrymen) by giving them actual armor, proper equipment, and a strong chain of command to counter and outmatch. How would this affect the conflicts between Persia and Greece, but also all around the fringes of the Achaemenid Empire?

 

[dandan_noodles]

No, the Persians were probably outnumbered against the Greeks in most of their battles, or unable to use their cavalry. The Persian infantry were well equipped; Herodotos records that the Persians, Medes, Hyrkarians, and Sussites were all equipped with iron scale armor. They had a proper chain of command down to squads of ten, unlike the Greeks, and with a stronger diversity of arms, they had an advantage in open ground field battles, which is why the Greeks avoided them. There's nothing that superior about the average Greek hoplite; they're just A Dude With A Shield And Spear, with no training to speak of. Moreover, there was no subdivision among them below several hundred men. What the Persians need for the second invasion is better strategy; they need to not get drawn into disadvantageous ground in Salamis or at Plataea, and they can destroy the allied Greek armies.

 

[Tyrann Philip II]

No, the Persians were probably outnumbered against the Greeks in most of their battles, or unable to use their cavalry. The Persian infantry were well equipped; Herodotos records that the Persians, Medes, Hyrkarians, and Sussites were all equipped with iron scale armor. They had a proper chain of command down to squads of ten, unlike the Greeks, and with a stronger diversity of arms, they had an advantage in open ground field battles, which is why the Greeks avoided them. There's nothing that superior about the average Greek hoplite; they're just A Dude With A Shield And Spear, with no training to speak of. Moreover, there was no subdivision among them below several hundred men. What the Persians need for the second invasion is better strategy; they need to not get drawn into disadvantageous ground in Salamis or at Plataea, and they can destroy the allied Greek armies.

So like Napoleon in Russia, what they need is just a chain of decisive victories to kick the Greeks in the teeth?

 

[dandan_noodles]

So like Napoleon in Russia, what they need is just a chain of decisive victories to kick the Greeks in the teeth?

They need to fight a general engagement on their own terms; with numerical parity or superiority on open ground, they'll win a stand up, knock down fight, and with their massive cavalry advantage, the result would be punishing to the Greeks.

 

[alexmilman]

No, the Persians were probably outnumbered against the Greeks in most of their battles, or unable to use their cavalry. The Persian infantry were well equipped; Herodotos records that the Persians, Medes, Hyrkarians, and Sussites were all equipped with iron scale armor. They had a proper chain of command down to squads of ten, unlike the Greeks, and with a stronger diversity of arms, they had an advantage in open ground field battles, which is why the Greeks avoided them. There's nothing that superior about the average Greek hoplite; they're just A Dude With A Shield And Spear, with no training to speak of. Moreover, there was no subdivision among them below several hundred men. What the Persians need for the second invasion is better strategy; they need to not get drawn into disadvantageous ground in Salamis or at Plataea, and they can destroy the allied Greek armies.

Well, Herodotus also recorded the Persian armies million strong and many things he wrote were debunked by Delbruck and other modern military historians so what he wrote should not be taken as an ultimate truth.

It seems that the scale armor had been worn mostly by the Immortals and the scales had been rather thin and incomparable with the heavier armor of the Greek hoplites The shields were wicker and, again, inferior to those used by the Greek infantry. Sparabara were armoured with quilted linen and carried large rectangular wicker shields as a form of light manoeuvrable defence. "This, however, left them at a severe disadvantage against heavily armoured opponents such as the hoplite, and his two-metre-long spear was not able to give the Sparabara ample range to plausibly engage a trained phalanx. The wicker shields were able to effectively stop arrows but not strong enough to protect the soldier from spears." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire#Military

So, in general their infantry was much lighter than a typical Greek infantry and developed for fighting mostly the Eastern opponents who were even lighter. It tells a lot about their bravery and discipline that they kept attacking the phalanx of the "super-heavy" Spartans (not the naked weirdos from the latest movies). I read somewhere that Spartan hoplite had the heaviest infantry armour ever, can't tell if this is correct; and of course, unlike many others, the Spartans were well well-trained to fight in formation. How brave one had be to attack such a formation with the clearly inferior protection of his own!

As for the Greeks, as Montgomery put it (IIRC), their military system was not very advanced but well suited for fighting in a very specific terrain of their native area which allowed to minimize advantages of the Persian system.

 

[dandan_noodles]

@alexmilman

Oh, let me tremble before the awesome might of your wikipedia links

Herodotos is the only source we have for most of the Persian Wars, and it's extremely unwise to disregard his account without strong contrary evidence. We frankly don't have any reason to think the Persians as a whole were less well armored than the Greeks. The vast majority of hoplites could afford no armor, and our only real source for this war says that all Iranians came in scale armor, so there's no actual evidence the Persians were less well armored than the Greeks. Moreover, I fail to see how you're so confident the Persian shield is so inferior to the Greek. Even among the Spartans, there's no actual evidence of widespread armor, advanced military organization, or training at this point in history. When Thucydides sees tactical maneuvers and chains of command decades later, it floors him, and we don't get a detailed description of Sparta's social/military system until Xenophon a century after the Persian Wars. When Herodotos describes their fighting, they're notably less advanced than the other Greeks, fluidly engaging and breaking off from the Persians at Thermopylae, and having a much larger proportion of light armed troops compared to hoplites than contemporary Greek cities. No Greeks during this period had military training as such or organization below several hundred men.

The Greeks won through superior strategy: they picked ground that nullified their enemies' advantage, took them by surprise, and held bottlenecks. If they had met the Persians on the plains of Attika, they would have been destroyed, Aspis or no.

 

[alexmilman]

@alexmilman

Oh, let me tremble before the awesome might of your wikipedia links

Herodotos is the only source we have for most of the Persian Wars, and it's extremely unwise to disregard his account without strong contrary evidence.

Oh, let me tremble before the awesome might of Herodotos. It probably escaped your attention that military history somewhat evolved since his times and that Hans Delbruck debunked a considerable part of what he wrote. But, putting that aside, the same things you wrote about the Greek armor are applicable to the Persians: existence of the scaled armor does not mean that everybody had it.

As for the rest, you are preaching to the choir: nobody (AFAIK) is denying that the Persians had a more sophisticated military organization and more flexible tactics than the Greeks. I even quoted Montgomery on the subject.

 

[Don Quijote]

No, the Persians were probably outnumbered against the Greeks in most of their battles, or unable to use their cavalry. The Persian infantry were well equipped; Herodotos records that the Persians, Medes, Hyrkarians, and Sussites were all equipped with iron scale armor. They had a proper chain of command down to squads of ten, unlike the Greeks, and with a stronger diversity of arms, they had an advantage in open ground field battles, which is why the Greeks avoided them. There's nothing that superior about the average Greek hoplite; they're just A Dude With A Shield And Spear, with no training to speak of. Moreover, there was no subdivision among them below several hundred men. What the Persians need for the second invasion is better strategy; they need to not get drawn into disadvantageous ground in Salamis or at Plataea, and they can destroy the allied Greek armies.

I am extremely sceptical about this, assuming we are referring to the Persian invasions of 490 and 480.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Or you could hire Thebans.

 

[Tyrann Philip II]

Just to restate: This is if Xerxes possibly reformed the Persian infantry corps after the disaster at Marathon, and reformed the infantry giving them new equipment and better formations, perhaps even copying the proto-phalanx.

 

[dandan_noodles]

Oh, let me tremble before the awesome might of Herodotos. It probably escaped your attention that military history somewhat evolved since his times and that Hans Delbruck debunked a considerable part of what he wrote. But, putting that aside, the same things you wrote about the Greek armor are applicable to the Persians: existence of the scaled armor does not mean that everybody had it.

The only primary source we have on the topic we're discussing? Damn right you should respect his account.

And it probably escaped your attention that military history has evolved somewhat since the late 19th century; Delbruck's writings came out of a period where 'professional expertise' could outweigh the written primary sources, which today few historians would attempt outside of exceptional circumstances. Moreover, if no modern historian has tackled the issue of Persian armor, which our only source says they had, denying it is just arbitrary and baseless skepticism.

I am extremely sceptical about this, assuming we are referring to the Persian invasions of 490 and 480.

Modern historians estimate the Persian army at Plataea at a bit under 100,000, while the Greek army was a bit over.

 

[Don Quijote]

The only primary source we have on the topic we're discussing? Damn right you should respect his account.

And it probably escaped your attention that military history has evolved somewhat since the late 19th century; Delbruck's writings came out of a period where 'professional expertise' could outweigh the written primary sources, which today few historians would attempt outside of exceptional circumstances. Moreover, if no modern historian has tackled the issue of Persian armor, which our only source says they had, denying it is just arbitrary and baseless skepticism.

Modern historians estimate the Persian army at Plataea at a bit under 100,000, while the Greek army was a bit over.

It's ironic that replying to @alexmilman you insist we should respect Herodotus' account, while ignoring part of it in your answer to me. Why accept his figure of 100,000 or so for the Greeks, but not his alleged 300,000 for the Persians? It is probably reasonable to assume the latter number is an exaggeration, but I'm not sure what basis there is for saying it was actually smaller than the Greek army.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

The only primary source we have on the topic we're discussing? Damn right you should respect his account.

But he is not a primary source. He may have spoken to people who were, but 20 30 years after the events. Xenophon had the same opportunity as well as at least some understanding of the Persian structure.

The only Primary source ( literary anyway ) is Aeschlyus in The Persians, who was at Marathon and alive at the time of Plataea.

Before reforming the whole of Persian society If thus thou shalt think: `May I not feel fear of (any) other,' protect this Persian kara; if the Persian kara shall be protected, thereafter by the will of Ahuramazda happiness shall come down uninterruptedly and eternally upon this royal house Kara = Army and the words Are Darius the Great.

Bear in mid that the Persians had previously beaten Greek in Ionia with some ease and and Marathon is a small action.

Its highly likely though that incorporating the Thebans ( and Thessalians and Macedonians and the rest) is an attempt to reform the Infantry. Certainly after Plataea and Mycale the solution is to incorporate Greek units, and generals entire rather than seriously reform the native Persian warriors.

 

[alexmilman]

It's ironic that replying to @alexmilman you insist we should respect Herodotus' account, while ignoring part of it in your answer to me. Why accept his figure of 100,000 or so for the Greeks, but not his alleged 300,000 for the Persians? It is probably reasonable to assume the latter number is an exaggeration, but I'm not sure what basis there is for saying it was actually smaller than the Greek army.

It was proven by Hans Delbruck (and AFAIK generally accepted by the modern historians) that most of the numbers produced by Herodotus are gross exaggerations.

 

[Don Quijote]

It was proven by Hans Delbruck (and AFAIK generally accepted by the modern historians) that most of the numbers produced by Herodotus are gross exaggerations.

Well I'm not going to dispute that for the Persian army of millions, for instance. What I fail to see is any evidence that the Persians were outnumbered at Plataea, let alone "outnumbered against the Greeks in most of their battles".

 

[alexmilman]

The only primary source we have on the topic we're discussing? Damn right you should respect his account.

First of all, use the civil language. Then, bring yourself up to date with a military history.

And it probably escaped your attention that military history has evolved somewhat since the late 19th century;

It evolved even more since the time of Herodotus.

Delbruck's writings came out of a period where 'professional expertise' could outweigh the written primary sources, which today few historians would attempt outside of exceptional circumstances.

Which probably is supposed to mean that they would repeat any nonsense as long as it was written by the ancient author (BTW, Herodotus is hardly a "primary source"). But it looks like they are basing the estimates based upon the same approach as Delbruck, aka, 'professional experience' (size of the camp, etc.).

Moreover, if no modern historian has tackled the issue of Persian armor, which our only source says they had, denying it is just arbitrary and baseless skepticism.

Well, there are numerous depictions and archaeological discoveries but, anyway, you clearly don't understand what was written: existence of something like scale armor does not automatically mean that everybody could afford it.

Anyway,

"Геродот: “Потерпели же персы поражение главным образом потому, что у них не было тяжелого вооружения и они должны были сражаться легковооруженными против гоплитов.” Наличие некоторого количества возможных льняных или чешуйчатых доспехов без хорошего щита персов не спасало."
http://strategwar.ru/military-history/drevnee-vooruzhenie-persidskaya-armiya

Translation: 'Herodotus: "The Persians had been defeated mostly because they did not have a heavy armor and they were forced to fight lightly armed against the hoplites".
Availability of some numbers of quilted and scaled armor without a good shield was not saving the Persians. '

Modern historians estimate the Persian army at Plataea at a bit under 100,000...

Then, you should be happy with what Delbruck wrote: based on the distance the Persians marched in a day when Athens was attacked, he concluded that 75,000 was the upper limit for the size of the Persian army, including the supply personnel and other non-combatants. In his battle account of Plataea, Delbrück estimated the Persian army, including allied Greeks, as amounting to 40,000. But, anyway, even 100K is a huge step down from a sacred "primary source" which as you insisted most of the modern historians are using: according to that "source" Persian army was over 300,000.

 

[dandan_noodles]

It's ironic that replying to @alexmilman you insist we should respect Herodotus' account, while ignoring part of it in your answer to me. Why accept his figure of 100,000 or so for the Greeks, but not his alleged 300,000 for the Persians? It is probably reasonable to assume the latter number is an exaggeration, but I'm not sure what basis there is for saying it was actually smaller than the Greek army.

also @alexmilman
Herodotos gives the dimensions for the Persian camp at Plataea, which gives modern historians a reasonable basis in the primary sources for this calculation. Prior to the battle, Mardonios proposed a 'battle of champions' of sort between his Persians and the Spartans with equal numbers, indicating a belief this would even the odds. During the battle itself, this is made even more explicit, when he describes the 10,000 Immortals facing off against the 10,000 Spartan hoplites and the 45,000 light troops they brought with them. Moreover, you need to be more alert in your critical faculties, since you failed to distinguish between reinterpretations based on actual, practical knowledge (army numbers) and primary source analysis, and those based on A Whole Lot Of Nothing (armor.)

The point is that the sources we have give us no real grounds to speculate the Persians possessed inferior armor to the Greeks. We might suppose that not all Persians in the army had the armor Herodotos describes them as having, but this is hardly grounds for concluding the Greeks had better armor. Especially since modern historians believe that these Persians were drawn from a warrior class within Persian society, there's no concrete reason to not believe Herodotos when he says the Iranians had scale armor in general issue, and even less reason to suppose that even if not all of them could afford it, even less had armor than the Greeks.

@tyrann
The fact that the Persians still failed despite their many tactical advantages over the Greeks to me suggests that even 'reformed' Persian infantry would still fail if their leaders did not conduct sound strategy.

 

[alexmilman]

What I fail to see is any evidence that the Persians were outnumbered at Plataea, let alone "outnumbered against the Greeks in most of their battles".

On this specific subject I don't have any opinion and don't really care enough to get into a fruitless discussion based on "who said what" because there is no reliable way to find out what really took place.