Hi
The peace of Antalcidas took effect in 389.
How do you come up with the 150 years?
The peace of Antalcidas took effect in 389.
Would the Achaemenid's have really collapsed if they conquered greece?
- Thread starter Parmenion
- Start date
I mean that Persians lasted another 150 years before Alex whooped them.
about the last thing:he works on an university, teaching history, so maybe where you are from that doesn’t mean that he is historian, but in the netherlands it does and yes he uses the idea of “the west”, but he has an unconventional look at it, and don’t forget the greek sphere of influence had a shared culture and so the middle east did, also why does oriëntalism mean that someone overstate “eastern” might instead of understating,he didn’t say in his book that the greeks won against all odds because of superiority or something like that, he tells it neutral.
about the second thing:that is my whole point, if their lines could fill the fields had they a chance, but not in plain field without that protectioning mountains
about the third thing:yes, I understand that if a city is sieged there isn’t much urban fight, but did is about after the take over not during, and during a revolt would they make more chance blocking the streets than raiding the routes with their heavy armor.
about the first thing:according to most sites about ancient warfare the persian main army had infantry built up in sparabara formation:1 sparabara, 9 archers.and used about 20% cavalry.the diversement was because the enormous amount of local troops,but they were generally for displaying the royal strength(source: the book “de perzen”of lloyd llewellyn-jones(in that book is said the king followed the old patterns) and the persian and median troops were mostly used in real warfare(the book “wereldrijk van het tweestromenland” of daan nijsen)
also I know most sites are bad sources, but it aren’t things you usually get when searching for random numbers and show me a source which is trustworthy than mine and states that the core was just as diverse(I don’t mean the ethnic troops,just the persians and the medes, maybe the troopsat plataea)and I overgeneralized it, we will continue this discussion
Last edited:
"According to modern estimates based on the order of battle described by Herodotus, the detailed composition of the Achaemenid army consisted in about 40,000 Persian troops on the left of the battle line, facing the Spartans, about 20,000 Bactrians, Indians and Sakae in the centre, facing various Greek states,[59] and about 20,000 Greek allies of the Persians (Macedonians, Thessalians, Beotians, Thebeans), positioned on the right wing facing the Athenians.[60] The cavalry, which also consisted of Persians, Bactrians, Indians and Sakae, would total about 5,000.[68][60]
Herodotus described in detail the dispositions of the two armies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plataea, acc. 17. 12. 2022
The presence of Greek allies clearly demonstrates the Persian's ability to field heavy infantry, since there is absolutely no reason to assume that the pro-imperial Greeks fought in any manner but their traditional one.
"Equally, Herodotus tells us that the Egyptian marines serving in the navy were well armed, and performed well against the Greek marines; yet no Egyptian contingent served in the army.[178]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Persian_invasion_of_Greece#Tactical_analysis, acc. 17. 12. 2022
While it is notable that the Egyptians were not employed on land, evidently the Greeks at least saw them as a match for their own heavy infantry, adding yet another option to the Persian menu of heavy troops.
I am of course aware that Wikipedia is far from a perfect source, however it is the best which I have available at the moment, seeing as the university library closes on weekends.
you really don’t understand my point, do you? .
my point is that the core,which fought the most, wasn’t diverse, because in the sum you,quoting herodotus and modern historians, which is good, forget one point: it are the ethnic regiments,you say bactrians, indians, greeks, sakae etcetera, it are not regiments like:slings, archers, hoplites , sparabara, takabara.that split was inferior to the land of the troops.
also I don’t say the persians couldn’t use heavy troops, but if the greeks tried to use light would be a guarantued(I hope I typed it right) loss,so the greeks would have in comparison more chance in situations where heavy troops were important,I think they still would loss, but they would have more chance than trying querillia
this whole discussion is about a potential greek revolt and their best chances, but let’s be clear:I think the greeks would have no chance,but a bit better odds in place were heavy infantry is superior, and without mountains if there was a way through(the persians had mountainclimbers in their army)
by the way, what do you study and where
No it wouldn't have collapse from conquering greece for the same reason Alexander's empire wasn't destined to collapse immediately after his death, it wasn't some centralised state it was a highly diverse feudal state while the greeks wouldn't like being their subjects they would probably have alot of autonomy which would help cool tensions.
Considering their temperate and relative power at the time the greeks would probably rebel at some point down the line and this most likely wouldn't end the achaemed empire the worst that would happen is a greek dynasty taking over and the best case would be putting down the rebellion without trouble
Considering their temperate and relative power at the time the greeks would probably rebel at some point down the line and this most likely wouldn't end the achaemed empire the worst that would happen is a greek dynasty taking over and the best case would be putting down the rebellion without trouble
well alexander’s empire did kind of collapse after his death,because he hadn’t gathered loyalty of the mighty warlords,he killed one of his generals, after alexander’s death the generals fought twenty years,ravaging the land and killing the royal family, ending in a group of diadochs;followed by many intern wars, many in anatolia and six seleucid-ptolemid wars in the relatively short exsistance of the seleucid empire(I always forget if it were one hundred or two hundreds year)in onky syria
It's not like Macedon breaking out into civil war after the death of the king started with Alexander. That feels worth noting as far as comparing the two empires as far as chances of breaking down - as far as I know, the Achaemenid empire does not have the history of "the king dies and their successor has to re-assert control" for generation on generation.
It wasn't uncommon for them to have civil wars either, also with the macedonian empire I should of said its not destined to break apart with out a alexander that dies young ,if he lived long enough for his heir to grow up the empire would probably stay together
Plenty of Greeks in Anatolia worked for the Persians as mercenaries and they rejected Sparta's overtones to join them. After the ionian revolt, they were quite loyal to their overlords... or at least no more disloyal than random Greeks would be to local aristocrats ruling them. If you think of each Greek port as being interchangeable culture wise as long as they aren't Athens (who gets points for being unique or whatever in most forum members' eyes) then Persia can use their existing administration which worked and that would be just fine.
still,his generals didn’t choose side for the royal families, so except if he had plans to lower their power or they would just die, older princes wouldn’t change much.
alexander had good general who actually weren’t very loyal to the royal family and also not to each other,he did exactly the opposite of what darius I did, darius gathered loyal and strong noblemen to support his dynasty, alexander’s general weren’t loyal and murdered out the dynasty.
last, but not least:you can’t put the blame to his young dead, each other king ,who was sick of thought that he took enormous risks, picked a (I don’t now the english word)king to be(?)and gave him a royal guard and made the other possible pretenders swere an oath.
well, in that time you had periodic revolts and many civil wars, but darius was one of the only kings who passed on without a civil war breaking out in response, but as I just said in the time of darius and darius junior(xerxes, he was very much like his father) the achaemenid empire was steady, thriving well and strong. also the growth in might of artafrenes II,mardonius and datis could prevent artabanus becoming so mighty , savng the king
no to both questions, sardis was an enormous base of royal might and if mardonius stayed there, but it isn’t very pverstretched and the only vurnerablety I see is a strengthened might base of possible pretenders, who in fact were very loyal
They have more to worry about family infighting than mainland Greece needing garrisions.
totally agreed, but darius and cyrus were the only ones keeping a steady family life.without the death of many loyal nobles, the persian empire would stay even steadier