Why the Persians never tried to adopt Hoplite Phalanx...?

Typo is correct. All militaries are a product of their society (which in turn is based partly on geographic factors). Heavy infantry in the form of Greek Hoplites or Roman Legionnaries are fairly unique to the West, in the same way that armies or mass cavalry archers are mainly found in the great Eurasian steppes.

Italy and Greece are mountainous penninsulas with small areas of pastureland and easy access to the sea. It encourages a society of small, independent farmers that trade with others. The society of Greek poleis end up favoring heavy infantry based on independent farmers. They have the wealth to maintain their own weapons and armor; and their involvement in the politics of their polis encourage or obligate them to defend it. They train extensively to fight in close formation. The costs in time and money are born by individuals who willingly give it because of their own participation in the state. Nobles may fight on horseback, but the geography of the land prevents their being enough rich nobles or horses for a large cavalry force.

None of those elements apply to Persia which was dominated by cavlary on the Iranian Plateau. Their nobility fought on horseback, and was the dominant part of their armed forces. Their infantry was mainly light infantry of peasant levies. The light infantry were poorly armed and had little training in comparison to the Greek hoplites precisely because they were peasants who did not own their own land. The nobility, of course, preferred to fight on horseback as it was more prestigious than fighting on foot, and the Persians had much greater access to horses than the Greeks.

The Persian empire lacked the society to encourage the formation of heavy infantry. It would require a vastly different system of social and economic formation. It was simply easier for them to higher Greek mercenaries if they wanted such heavy infantry.

It might be possible for the Persians to decide to arm and extensively train peasants to fight as heavy infantry. But this is a high cost for very little gain. Since peasants can't own or maintain their own weapons, the state has to do it for them. And for the peasants to train extensively means they can't be working in the fields for their lords. Also, they will need to be paid/clothed/fed all this time (unlike levies of light infantry which are called only when needed). All of this is a cost that was not previously borne by the state. So taxes will need to increase which will produce social unrest. And all of this extra cost wasn't needed to create or maintain the Persian Empire in the first place. This is only being done so that obstensibly the Persian Empire can invade a marginal territory on their far western flank.

In other words, the bulk of Persian society is going to be against this increase in cost and social unrest for little potential gain.
 
While Blackfox5 is essentially correct the real key thing isn't social structure but military geography.
Most of the Persian Empire was big wide open plains and perfect for Horsemen, which is why every power based there was centred on Horsemen (see Parthians, Sassanids, Mughals, etc.).
Greece is made up of narrow mountain valleys with restricted ability to manoeuvre, favouring heavy infantry.
While Persia could have trained a elite Hoplite force it would have been a really dumb decision. As Xenophon and Carrhae showed the Hoplite heavy infantry military style only really worked in Greece and Asia Minor. On the plains it was suicidal. So why would Persia want to spend a large amount of money and effort building a force that would only really be appropriate in one far off corner of the Empire. A horse army could be used everywhere from Eastern Persia to Egypt.
While the Persians would eventually go down to Alexander he wasn't leading a Hoplite army, instead he was leading a cohesive, disciplined, combined arms force against a more primitive, divided, combined arms force and through sheer brilliance won.
 
While Blackfox5 is essentially correct the real key thing isn't social structure but military geography.
Most of the Persian Empire was big wide open plains and perfect for Horsemen, which is why every power based there was centred on Horsemen (see Parthians, Sassanids, Mughals, etc.).
Greece is made up of narrow mountain valleys with restricted ability to manoeuvre, favouring heavy infantry.
While Persia could have trained a elite Hoplite force it would have been a really dumb decision. As Xenophon and Carrhae showed the Hoplite heavy infantry military style only really worked in Greece and Asia Minor. On the plains it was suicidal. So why would Persia want to spend a large amount of money and effort building a force that would only really be appropriate in one far off corner of the Empire. A horse army could be used everywhere from Eastern Persia to Egypt.
While the Persians would eventually go down to Alexander he wasn't leading a Hoplite army, instead he was leading a cohesive, disciplined, combined arms force against a more primitive, divided, combined arms force and through sheer brilliance won.


If that is true could there be a place in persia that could use a mix of cavalry and heavy infantry like (roman legionaries or hoplites) that could create a combined arms approach to battle which is ultimately more flexable?
 
If that is true could there be a place in persia that could use a mix of cavalry and heavy infantry like (roman legionaries or hoplites) that could create a combined arms approach to battle which is ultimately more flexable?

I'm not sure, but the Seleucids used the combined arms approach (though it eventually went out in favor of more heavy infantry... again) in their empire stretching to Bactria.

Of course, they were overextended and not as skilled as Alexander, so when the Parthians and their very horse archers running circles around their heavy phalanxes came they lost, obviously.
 

Typo

Banned
While Blackfox5 is essentially correct the real key thing isn't social structure but military geography.
Most of the Persian Empire was big wide open plains and perfect for Horsemen, which is why every power based there was centred on Horsemen (see Parthians, Sassanids, Mughals, etc.).
Greece is made up of narrow mountain valleys with restricted ability to manoeuvre, favouring heavy infantry.
While Persia could have trained a elite Hoplite force it would have been a really dumb decision. As Xenophon and Carrhae showed the Hoplite heavy infantry military style only really worked in Greece and Asia Minor. On the plains it was suicidal. So why would Persia want to spend a large amount of money and effort building a force that would only really be appropriate in one far off corner of the Empire. A horse army could be used everywhere from Eastern Persia to Egypt.
While the Persians would eventually go down to Alexander he wasn't leading a Hoplite army, instead he was leading a cohesive, disciplined, combined arms force against a more primitive, divided, combined arms force and through sheer brilliance won.
It's both actually.

The hoplite system relied on free citizens who are capable of affording their own rather lavish equipment -and- possess superior Elee which comes from free men fighting for their homes.

But then again the social structures are pretty dependent on the military environment as BlackFox said in the first place so it's really hard to distinguish sometimes.
 
I'm not sure, but the Seleucids used the combined arms approach (though it eventually went out in favor of more heavy infantry... again) in their empire stretching to Bactria.

Of course, they were overextended and not as skilled as Alexander, so when the Parthians and their very horse archers running circles around their heavy phalanxes came they lost, obviously.

So maybe there needs to be a successful war between the parthians and the seluccids so that hte parthians can see the benifits of a combined arms aprroach or maybe earlier the a persian kingdom could exist which had an army that had a combined arms approach like the greeks did if that could happen?
 
So maybe there needs to be a successful war between the parthians and the seluccids so that hte parthians can see the benifits of a combined arms aprroach or maybe earlier the a persian kingdom could exist which had an army that had a combined arms approach like the greeks did if that could happen?

No, the problem is that heavy infantry just is no match against horse archers unless they had cavalry support.

Which the Seleucids used less and less.
 
No, the problem is that heavy infantry just is no match against horse archers unless they had cavalry support.

Which the Seleucids used less and less.

True so maybe a parthian war with a strong eastern nation or Selucids who use a combine arms approach that defeats the parthians in a succesion of wars that will eventually make the parthians and selucids use more of a combine arms approach.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
True so maybe a parthian war with a strong eastern nation or Selucids who use a combine arms approach that defeats the parthians in a succesion of wars that will eventually make the parthians and selucids use more of a combine arms approach.

Except they won't; the only thing that can soundly defeat horse archers in a war are either attrition or fortifications, for which the parthians lack proper siege methods: hoplites give none of this. Also the roman legionaries are, compared to a hoplite, borderline light infantry and it's their heavy use of light infantry tactics which makes them different (and better than) from hoplites, something they learned from the samnites. The pre-marian legion also has little to do with citizen-soldiery, if anything at all, and are closer in formation to the forces of Pyrrhus (owned, paid for and raised by important people), who also fielded hoplites, as did Alexander (short version: the idea that hoplites absolutely required citizen soldiers is nonsense; the most flexible hoplites were fielded by a despotic king, but they were much lighter armoured than their hellenic equivalent, it's combined arms which destroyed the greeks, except Sparta, since nobody gave a damn about Sparta at that point).
 
Except they won't; the only thing that can soundly defeat horse archers in a war are either attrition or fortifications, for which the parthians lack proper siege methods: hoplites give none of this. Also the roman legionaries are, compared to a hoplite, borderline light infantry and it's their heavy use of light infantry tactics which makes them different (and better than) from hoplites, something they learned from the samnites. The pre-marian legion also has little to do with citizen-soldiery, if anything at all, and are closer in formation to the forces of Pyrrhus (owned, paid for and raised by important people), who also fielded hoplites, as did Alexander (short version: the idea that hoplites absolutely required citizen soldiers is nonsense; the most flexible hoplites were fielded by a despotic king, but they were much lighter armoured than their hellenic equivalent, it's combined arms which destroyed the greeks, except Sparta, since nobody gave a damn about Sparta at that point).

Yes that is true but the selucids and that strong other kingdom would have had a strong command point since they were fighting the parthians for so long so for every direct battle the parthians, and selucid armies if led by a good king coul eventually learn from eachother.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Yes that is true but the selucids and that strong other kingdom would have had a strong command point since they were fighting the parthians for so long so for every direct battle the parthians, and selucid armies if led by a good king coul eventually learn from eachother.

Yeah, no. They would be retraining skilled hoplites and turning them into bad horsemen, while in the middle of being invaded. They also have the problem that their infantry is not merely weaker, but absolutely helpless. It's possible, but extremely hard to adapt in the middle of a war if your resources are strained too far, and with his capital too far to the west, his army built essentially around a depleted core of macedonian troops with some mercenaries, you have a terribly overstretched situation.
 
Yeah, no. They would be retraining skilled hoplites and turning them into bad horsemen, while in the middle of being invaded. They also have the problem that their infantry is not merely weaker, but absolutely helpless. It's possible, but extremely hard to adapt in the middle of a war if your resources are strained too far, and with his capital too far to the west, his army built essentially around a depleted core of macedonian troops with some mercenaries, you have a terribly overstretched situation.
True you are right. But what I am talking about that the armies are reformed a little after each war I know it will take a lot of money but it could work.
 
Top