Achaemenid military

Spartan women were notorious for being flaming hot.

citation needed

Except Herodotus tells us the Spartans didn't fight that way. He tells us they fought by feigning charges and luring their enemies out of formation. If anything the 300 movies got right, it would be the loose style of combat depicted.

Also the idea of a tight shieldwall may not be as accurate as one may think.

Except for the fact that Herodotus tells us the Persians immortals wore armor made up of iron scales and carried tall wicker shields. Also Herodotus mentions the Karians, Lydians, Phrygians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, Egyptians were armed "just like the Greeks".. Heavy infantry fighting in large homogenous formations was a common practice throughout the Eastern Mediterranean so it was nothing unique to Greece.

>The bulk of their armies were lightly armed tribal levies wearing no armor and who carried a spear, possibly a short sword and a short bow.
We don't know that much about the Persian military at the time to make that claim. But we do know they had a core of heavy infantry, their own immortals, and levied infantry from other parts of the empire. The Greeks also had lightly armed troops as well.

Bumping this, I'll respond soon. For now, just know the trolls saying they had no strategy or they were all unarmed are full of shit.

I know that later in the Empires life the Persians developed a new class of hoplite-like soldier known as the Kardakes, who were equipped in a manner similar to Greek hoplites. They also switched some of their cavalry to become heavier, with Spears and barded armor in the fashion of an early Cataphract. It is theorized that the Persians began the increased utilization of Cataphracts as a result of extended contact with steppe peoples such as the Massegetae and Scythian's, though according to Wikipedia they were using some form of heavy cavalry as far back as the 6th century BC.

The main strength of the Persian military was it's cavalry. During the invasion of Greece this proved problematic due to the geography of Greece with its rugged terrain. Cavalry operates bests on plains, which are lacking in Greece south of Thessaly.

When the Greeks of Asia Minor rebelled they were pretty easily defeated by the Persian cavalry in battle. And At Platea a big part of the battle was both the Greeks and the Persians trying to make the other engage on ground suitable to them.

By the time we get to Alexander his main success is due to having a completely professional and modern (for the time) army as well as his tactical genius, and Darius was a pretty uninspired general when it came to tactics.

Explain the wars of the Delian League or the civil war decided by Cunaxa and the Greek mercenaries employed in it.

The Delian League was largely successful due to its navy. I am speaking of land forces.

As far as Cunaxa is concerned. While the Persian cavalry was strong; their infantry was lacking, while I thought this was implied I should have made it explicit that Persian infantry was pretty shit due to how Persian (and Parthia and the Sassanid's) organised their state and military. At Cunaxa while the Greek mercenaries were important, the main part of the battle took place between the Persian cavalry and Cyrus the Younger's cavalry which was a pretty touch and go battle (as both were good) until Cyrus got killed.

The Persian left-wing at Cunaxa was made up of their weaker troops were routed pretty quickly as they were charged by the Greek mercenaries. Also, while the Greeks may very well have claimed they "charged the Persian army and defeated it" it's more likely that the Persian right disengaged to destroy the rebel's camp; which was destroyed/looted by the victors of the battle.

> Persian infantry was pretty shit due to how Persian (and Parthia and the Sassanid's) organised their state and military.
How exactly was their infantry organized like shit?

The Delian league overran Persian controlled Thessaly, kicked the Persians out of Ionia such that Persia never regained control of those cities militarily (only creeping back in on the back of a peace treaty between warring Greek states) and came damn close to overrunning all of Egypt. They fought and won on land as much as they won on the water.

>Re: Cunaxa
Except it was about as flat and open a battle as a cavalry general could have wished for, and the infantry of the Greeks came and crushed them anyway.

> At Cunaxa while the Greek mercenaries were important, the main part of the battle took place between the Persian cavalry and Cyrus the Younger's cavalry which was a pretty touch and go battle (as both were good) until Cyrus got killed.
lolno. The forces of Artaxerxes fled the field, and the victory would have been completely decisive if not for the fact that Cyrus the younger died in the fighting. The "main" cavalry action somehow didn't manage to keep Cyrus's forces from holding the battlefield at the end of the day.

Because the state didn't provide their infantry with training/equipment to the standard a state like Rome or Macedon did. While in each (Persia, Parthia, and the Sassanids) there was a small amount of professional infantry; the bulk of the infantry was levied.

However a lot of care was put into the cavalry which was made up of the nobility and petty nobility. This include training from near birth in horsemanship, archery, and swordsmanship (catch all for melee); as well as access to the best equipment and mounts.

This is in part due to Zoroastrianism which state that the purpose of a noble is to defend farm land, while the purpose of a peasant/worker/serf is to work said farmland.

The Delian league wasn't around when Thessaly was retaken. It was the league under the Spartans. And after the Persians were defeated at Platea they retreated as they didn't have the strength to hold Greece. Also, Macedon changed sides to the Greeks after Platea which further fucked with the Persian withdrawal from Greece.

The Persians under Cyrus fled the field after Cyrus' death. While the Persians under Artaxerxes may very well have "fled" when charged by the Greek mercenaries it's more likely that they withdrew to destroy their camp. As the mercenaries camp was destroyed, which isn't usually the kind of action performed to troops from the opposing side fleeing.

And yes. had Cyrus the Younger not died it would have been a complete victory for Cyrus; I'm not arguing that. But Cyrus did die and that threw everything out the window. It could be considered a tactical victory for Cyrus the Younger as his forces held the field, but it didn't matter once the pretender was dead.

1/2
>How did their general battle tactics work? From what I understand, their infantry was made up of those dudes with the huge wicker pavises whose job it was to cover a pretty enormous amount of foot archers.
Basically yes, the Sparabaras (shield bearers) were adopted from Median and Assyrian battle tactics; a single row of Sparabaras would hold the line while rows of archers and missile troops up to 9 ranks deep would fire overhead.
Persian tactics also relied heavily on their cavalry; after Mardonius' failed excursion through Thrace, Darius had a fleet ordered from Ionia to the extent of 600 ships including cavalry transports, and the site of Marathon was explicitly chosen as it allowed the cavalry to deploy and engage the Athenians directly. The prior siege of Eretria required the Persians to land their forces in 2 or 3 different locations for comparison.
>What was their weaponry and armour really like? For instance, I've heard that the pseudo-kopis in the picture is ahistorical.
Sparabaras were issued shields and later small 6ft spears for holding the line; Persian infantry relied more on missile troops (javelins and such) and of course archers.
Light cavalry were armed with spears and bows inspired by the Scythians; heavy cavalry bore spears and swords and sported heavy scale armor in later eras (the Cataphracts). Chariots had much the same equipment.
The Immortals were more heavily armed than Sparabaras, with archery capabilities, and also bore scale armor under their uniforms.

I've seen it argued that the instant flight of the Persian left wing was simply to distract the Greek mercenaries from taking action during battle. By fleeing, and getting a headstart, the Greek mercenaries go chasing after them and become irrelevant for most of the critical action in battle. Which is what you describe. I also wouldn't say the Persians didn't have capable troops, the Egyptian pikemen were present and they know to be more than a match for the Greeks.

With all of his objectives complete Artaxerxes had no reason to engage the mercenaries who survived the battle instead he left them in the cold desert night to starve.

>The Delian league wasn't around when Thessaly was retaken.
Mea culpa, I meant Thrace, the campaigning around Eion and Thasos.

>And yes. had Cyrus the Younger not died it would have been a complete victory for Cyrus; I'm not arguing that. But Cyrus did die and that threw everything out the window. It could be considered a tactical victory for Cyrus the Younger as his forces held the field, but it didn't matter once the pretender was dead.
And none of THAT matters for the discussion at hand, namely how the Persian cavalry was completely unable to rout a totally unsupported Greek infantry force in the middle of a flat plain, which makes the claim that the Persian cavalry advantage was one that served them in good stead except in the rough terrain of Greece proper a dubious one in the extreme. It also casts doubt on the claim that Alexander's win over Persia was only possible with both a professional force and a big gap in generalship: Xenophon and his force had neither of those things and was about a quarter of the size of Alexander's forces, and still ran amok in the Persain empire for years.

2/2
>Shitty sensationalist documentaries always go on about how inferior their troops were to Greek hoplites (despite the fact they they themselves employed a significant number of them too). Is there any truth to this?
>It seems counter-intuitive because the enourmous wicker shields look like they would provide a similar amount of protection to the Hoplite's full panoply
This concept comes from an overestimation of the Hoplite field strength and the hilariously overstated number of Persian casualties in Greek sources (Herodotus cites Marathon as 6400 dead Persians to 192 Greek). Certainly the Persian infantry was lighter than the Greek, but also significantly larger and made much use of foreign pressed troops/mercenaries who would often fight in skirmisher roles outside the formation. Wicker shields by all accounts could easily stop arrows and missiles of the time (the primary threat faced by armies in the East) but probably couldn't stand up to Greek spears; the missiles and cavalry were the key on Greek battlefields, and the cavalry-unfriendly terrain of Macedon contributed heavily to Mardonius' failure to conquer the region.

Because the whole objective of that battle was to kill Cyrus and his circle. In Plutarch's Life of Artaxerxes he mentions that Artaxerxes went through great lengths to make people believe Cyrus the Younger fell by his own hand.

Artaxerxes won a great victory, he won with minimal casuelties, Cyrus was dead and so was his inner circle, possesion were capture and his army was intact.

The Greek mercenaries were entretained by chasing their fleeing enemies but overall played no important role. Since they also had no political relevancy there was no reason for Artaxerxes to engage them despite having the numbers, missile and cavalry advantage.

Tissaphernes wanted to keep the mercenaries as his own private army while also offering an olive branch to Artaxerxes (hence his inviting the officers to a feast then handed those officers over to Artaxerxes for execution). Tissaphernes' plan didn't succeed as far as the Greek mercenaries were concerned.

Also, Artaxerxes's army probably had pretty low morale after Cunaxa and I doubt Artaxerxes was keen on another battle considering that he had effectively been beaten at Cunaxa even though it ended up being a victory.

Battles are not as simple as x-troop beats y-troop, especially when you take into account the morale conditions of those fighting. Add in the political machinations between Artaxerxes and his satraps, as well as other members of Artaxerxes' own family who very possibly had similar ideas to Cyrus the Younger (hence why Artaxerxes purged most of his family).

But isn't that the case for most armies in the ancient world? The Greeks also provided no equipment and training to their levies.
The Roman Republic was the same way, the men brought their own equipment and they may had minimal training.

Oh, I'm not arguing that this wasn't the case for most armies in the Ancient World, as well as the medieval world too.

However both the Macedonian (and it's successor states) and the Roman Empire (post Marius definitely) did begin to provide troops with arms, and the Roman army also provided them with training. Hell, during Scipio's governorship of Sicily he had the Sicilian aristocracy pay for equipment and horses for cavalry he was raising for the upcoming African campaign.

>Also Herodotus mentions the Karians, Lydians, Phrygians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, Egyptians were armed "just like the Greeks"
That's a point of contention against Herodotus; Herodotus also posits that the Egyptians introduced the Hoplite panoply and shield to Greece which is verifiably incorrect, and the Phrygians and other Pelasgian-descended people were known to still be fighting with light skirmisher infantry straight up to the time of Artaxerxes, reference the Anabasis.

Kys

cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/achaemenid_army.htm

>The Cavalry was made up of the upper class and their sons, all who were taught how to ride and shoot a bow as soon as they could walk. Their job was to harass the enemy with moving arrow-fire or javelins, and then when the enemy would flee they would be cut to pieces.
Persian cavalry archers collapsed into a ceremonial class over time; most of the horse archers on a Persian battlefield were Sacae/Scythian. The real strength of Persian cavalry were their chariots, and the fact that they could field large numbers of light cavalry early on thanks to having both horses and camels.

Also the Immortals were more than just heavy infantry, they held positions in the royal bodyguard that likely inspired Alexander's Hetairoi and later became a religious class themselves.

>The real strength of Persian cavalry were their chariots

Both Cunaxa and Gaugamela tell you that you're retarded.

>Persian cavalry archers collapsed into a ceremonial class over time
Source? I've never read this.

Where can I find all these drawings of uniforms through different time periods and regions? I've looked through the files in the Veeky Forums book thread but only found osprey books with few drawings and even less uniforms.

Both battles occurred on Persian territory where they could freely move their own cavalry in greater numbers and with greater ease than in Greece, where they were more limited. If I'm not wrong Scythed Chariots were used in small numbers even then, and I'm not a big supporter of the "muh scythed chariots" meme.
Chariots would have been easier to transport abroad to Greece, and easier to fix if broken, than individual cavalry units. Obviously in Asia there would be a difference.

Specifically referring to chariot archers; light cavalry archers continued widespread use and were augmented by the aforementioned Scythians and Sacae. I believe the source comes from religious texts and depictions in Persian ruins, but I don't have it onhand.

How many land battles did they win? I can recall 3 major victories they scored. At the Eurymedon which was a naval battle, in Cyprus which was another naval battle and in Egypt which they helped a rebelling Egyptian army in the 460s BC which was a land battle.

At Cyprus the Greeks lost Kimon and withdrew back to Greece. Their army in Egypt was wiped out after a few years and they lost over 200 tririmes. Never did the Delian League attempt to advance further into Asia Minor since they knew their strenght was in their navy.

Of course the Persians played it smart and encouraged other cities to revolt such as Erythrai and Miletos. The Persians had plenty of monetary resources and playing off the greed of the Greeks was one of their greater strenghts.

Of course the Greeks feared the Persians as well.

>and when they also sent men to the tops of the mounds and towers in their neighbourhood, they made out an army drawn up in line of battle where their own road ran—Carians with white shields, the entire Persian force which chanced to be at hand, all the Greek troops which each of the two satraps had, and horsemen in great numbers, those of Tissaphernes upon the right wing and those of Pharnabazus upon the left. When Dercylidas learned of all this, he told the commanders of divisions and the captains to form their men in line, eight deep, as quickly as possible, and to station the peltasts on either wing and likewise the cavalry—all that he chanced to have and such as it was; meanwhile he himself offered sacrifice. Now all that part of the army which was from Peloponnesus kept quiet and prepared for battle; but as for the men from Priene and Achilleium, from the islands and the Ionian cities, some of them left their arms in the standing grain (for the grain was tall in the plain of the Maeander) and ran away, while all those who did stand showed clearly that they would1 not stand very long. Xen. Hell. 3.2.15-17

>How many land battles did they win?
I can turn that around. How many land battles did the Persians win? The closest you come to is the breaking of the siege of Memphis, which probably has a lot more to do with the failure of a 4 year long siege and the breaking out of war back home than anything else.

>At Cyprus the Greeks lost Kimon and withdrew back to Greece.
Which is again, a failure to take a fortified position, not the Persians beating them in battle.