Persian Wars

How did the Greeks manage to defeat Xerxes invasion? They were outnumbered and outclassed, was it just luck?

>outnumbered
yep

>outclassed
lmfao no

Stop getting your history knowledge from 300

I mean how did the actual greeks beat the actual persians, Who had been curbstomping them for 50 years and were in every way better soldiers

>criticizes me for apparently getting my knowledge from 300
>doesn't know anything himself and still asks me for the answer

retard

If the Persians outclassed the Greeks how did they lose against them?

Xerxes was months away from his logistical base, with a military mostly made up of treacherous vassals each commanding their private armies.

I think that is what he is asking.

Exactly, thats my question. Theres no obvious reason the greeks should have won, but they did

This is a good answer on a strategic level, but the persians still managed to lose in the sort of pitched battle where they usually dominated the Greeks. Was Plataia just bad luck? They certainly had terrible luck with their fleets, getting smashed twice by massive storms

The Persians were defeated decisively every time they faced the phalanx.

>After several days of maneuver and stalemate, Pausanias ordered a night-time retreat towards the Allies' original positions. This maneuver went awry, leaving the Athenians, and Spartans and Tegeans isolated on separate hills, with the other contingents scattered further away near Plataea. Seeing that the Persians might never have a better opportunity to attack, Mardonius ordered his whole army forward. However, the Persian infantry proved no match for the heavily armoured Greek hoplites, and the Spartans broke through to Mardonius's bodyguard and killed him. After this the Persian force dissolved in rout; 40,000 troops managed to escape via the road to Thessaly, but the rest fled to the Persian camp where they were trapped and slaughtered by the Greeks, finalising the Greek victory.

My answer was that THEY DIDN'T OUTCLASS THE GREEKS. The reason the Greeks won despite being so heavily outnumbered was because Greek equipment, training and and tactics were superior.

Not true, as i mentioned prior to the battle of marathon the persians had 50 year long unbroken streak of beating the greeks in battle

Except they did. The greeks had no training whatsoever, their armour was at best at least as good as the persians and compared to the Immortals at least it was worse by their own admission. They also had no tactics to speak of other than run forward and run away

Besides all of that, Xerxes army was largely comprised of Greek hoplites anyway

If you know so fucking much, how about YOU FUCKING TELL US WHY THEY LOST INSTEAD OF CONSTANTLY "CORRECTING" US, YOU FUCKING FAGGOT CUNT.

>and outclassed
No they weren't. The Greeks stomped the shit out of the Persians time and again; it's hard to say exactly why due to the paucity of sources from the time period, but I would set my own guess as to a much simpler mode of warfare among the greeks, when non-professional armies are the norm, a military with fewer moving parts has fewer points of failure.

>Xerxes was months away from his logistical base,
And in the follow up wars of the Delian league, the situation would be reversed, and the Greeks still ran rampant.

>with a military mostly made up of treacherous vassals each commanding their private armies.
What the hell are you drawing this from?

>but the persians still managed to lose in the sort of pitched battle where they usually dominated the Greeks.
There is no evidence of them "usually dominating the Greeks" in pitched battles.

>Was Plataia just bad luck?
No.

>They certainly had terrible luck with their fleets, getting smashed twice by massive storms
That's par for the course in ancient warfare, especially when you bring fleets along that are too big for the harbors. The Greeks would suffer similar losses throughout the Peloponesean war, and the Romans would suffer horribly to weather in the first Punic War. Losing fleets to storms is part of the game if you want to do long term naval warfare with the technology available.

>Not true, as i mentioned prior to the battle of marathon the persians had 50 year long unbroken streak of beating the greeks in battle
Please, name one of these battles where they beat the Greeks.

>Besides all of that, Xerxes army was largely comprised of Greek hoplites anyway
This is completely wrong. Persian use of Greek hoplite mercenaries is of a much later era than Xerxes, and you should note that when they did employ Greek mercenaries, said mercs tended to be the cream of their troops, i.e. Cunaxa and the like

The Greeks didn't curbstomp anyone despite what people here may tell you. They clearly lost during the Ionian revolt and the Persians razed Athens to the ground.

The Greeks weren't stupid and sought to fight the Persians on irregular terrain to negate their true advantage, their cavalry. They always sought to not fight in where the Persians shined the most, open plain pitched battles. At Marathon this is a major reason they got everyone to charge at the Persians, including light infantry and cavalry, to quickly negate their cavalry advantage.
Even than Xerses left after razing Athens leaving the mop up operation to his right-hand man. It's been suggested that this army was an afterthought since it came at the end of campaign season.

Yes, I'm sure the defeat at Salamis and the consequent threatening of his supply tether (as well as route home) had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I'm looking for an actual explanation, not a mindless repetition of pop history

>The Greeks stomped the shit out of the Persians time and again
Examples? Every aspect of the persian military was superior to the greeks. Please, name one thing the greeks could do better than the persian empire in the classical period

>There is no evidence of them "usually dominating the Greeks" in pitched battles.
The casual way the persians conquered Ionia, and all of greece except the peloponnese suggests the greeks werent that good at fighting them off

>No.
Then what was it?

>Please, name one of these battles where they beat the Greeks.
Ephesos, Marsyas, Labraunda, Malene and the succesful conquest of every greek city in asia minor and northern greece. As well as the entire 2nd invasion up until plataia

>This is completely wrong
Herodotus himself claims the persians had 50000 ionians at plataia, even though his numbers are bullshit the persians no doubt would have brought a bunch of their greeks, along with the other parts of the empire that provided decent heavy infantry

Itwasaliens.jpg

While that movie has been brought up, one historical problem really gets under my skin. Not anything involving the battle because it was in-universe propoganda, it makes sense for them to be shirtless buff gods fighting monsters. No what bothers me is that the Ephors were bribed with gold coins. That makes LITERALLY no sense, Sparta never adopted the concept of currency. They were still bartering cows, it's their lack of adopting money that made Athens able to overtake them in time.

Victory at Plataia, like in most battles, was a matter of morale. The Greek phalanx and the equipment of Greek warriors were not as important as their stubborn refusal to accept defeat. Mardonios did almost everything right, and really should have won the battle, but the Spartans would not give up, and they eventually won through sheer attrition. The phalanx contributed to their ability to win such a fight, but it was hardly the decisive factor.

Actually they sorta did, according to Plutarch
>“…HE COMMANDED THAT ALL GOLD AND SILVER COIN SHOULD BE CALLED IN, AND THAT ONLY A SORT OF MONEY MADE OF IRON SHOULD BE CURRENT, A GREAT WEIGHT AND QUANTITY OF WHICH WAS BUT VERY LITTLE WORTH; SO THAT TO LAY UP TWENTY OR THIRTY POUNDS THERE WAS REQUIRED A PRETTY LARGE CLOSET, AND, TO REMOVE IT, NOTHING LESS THAN A YOKE OF OXEN…FOR THE IRON MONEY COULD NOT BE CARRIED INTO THE REST OF GREECE, NOR HAD IT ANY VALUE THERE, BUT WAS RATHER HELD IN RIDICULE.”

So they had money, it was just in a form that was so impractical that no one would bother trying to accumulate a lot of it.

>Examples?
The war of the Delian League, followed by Persia never again attempting to militarily confront the Greeks and instead trying to finance various polises fighting each other.

> Every aspect of the persian military was superior to the greeks.
No it isn't.

>Please, name one thing the greeks could do better than the persian empire in the classical period
Fight and win.

>The casual way the persians conquered Ionia, and all of greece except the peloponnese suggests the greeks werent that good at fighting them off
Or that they were simply seeking a measure of protection agaisnt enemies, internal or external. That would happen frequently with smaller Greek polises seeking protection from stonger ones in their own intercernine warfare. That doesn't mean they were beaten in batlte, or conquered.

>Then what was it?
A simpler, more robust army fighting at night without multiple moving parts that need to coordinate.

>Ephesos, Marsyas, Labraunda, Malene and the succesful conquest of every greek city in asia minor and northern greece.
Oooh, herodotus. Do you also believe that Xerxes brought in 5 million men?

>As well as the entire 2nd invasion up until plataia
Forgetting Salamis and Artemesium, are we?

>Herodotus himself claims the persians had 50000 ionians at plataia, even though his numbers are bullshit the persians no doubt would have brought a bunch of their greeks,
Please learn to read. I stated that they did not employ hoplite mercenaries. Subject troops conscripted are not mercenaries, and there is no indication that these ionians fought as hoplites anyway, since most of their mention is in naval action.

The Jews sabatoged it; they sought to destroy the Aryans even back then.

the majority of persians were shitty conscripts with no armor whatsoever or shitty cloth armor

the greeks didn't seek equal footing with persians
for example:
thermopylae=mountainous terrain
>greek advantage
marathon=ambush/shock attack
>greek advantage
platea=greek false retreat/luring tactic/higher ground
>greek advantage
salamis=strait/the persian ships try to block the entrance, their many numbers stymie each other/bottlenecked and become disorganized thus turned into self-fuckery
greeks took advantage
>greek advantage

mycale was probably among the ones that the greeks fought fairly with the persians

>No it isn't.
I'm struggling to come up with something the greeks did better, except possibly the mindless frontal charge. >Fight and win
Persians beat greeks a lot more than they lost to them

>Or that they were simply seeking a measure of protection agaisnt enemies
Ionia did not join persia willingly, and when it revolted en mass it was curbstomped

>A simpler, more robust army fighting at night
Simpler sure, more robust? No. Persia had plenty of heavy infantry, their own and their subjects

>Oooh, herodotus. Do you also believe that Xerxes brought in 5 million men?
But your happy to take his word for the battles the greeks won?

>Forgetting Salamis and Artemesium, are we?
I was thinking about land battles, but fair point on Salamis. The greeks lost Artemisium

>Please learn to read. I stated that they did not employ hoplite mercenaries
Right back at ya, I never suggested the persians had any greek mercenaries at all. Why would the persians have a bunch of greek soldiers at their land battle and not have them fight as hoplites? The other pro-persian greeks certainly did

> Who had been curbstomping them for 50 years and were in every way better soldiers
What is he talking about? Prior Xerxes invasion Greeks only fought once against persians (and they completely wrecked them), when Darius invaded them. What 50 years of curb stomping is he talking about?

Xerxes left with the bulk of his army after burning down Athens.

The one he invented to satisfy his fetishistic love for Persia.

Prior to the battle of marathon there was a 56 year period where no greek army managed to beat a persian one. This is why the Athenians were considered suicidally brave for fighting the battle of marathon at all

The Persians triumphed over the Greeks at Ephesus, Cyprus, Marsyas, Malene, Thermopayle, Artemisium, Lade, and Labraunda. Not exactly curb stomping as the Greeks generally put up a good fight (though Greek claims that they killed four Persians for every one of theirs at Artemisium and Thermopylae are highly doubtful), but the Persians did constantly win. This is why Marathon was such a huge shock to the rest of Greece even though the numbers weren't that disparate, about 2-1.

Consider the conflicts between Persia and the Greek states in the early 5th century BC. The Persians were defeated in pitched battle at Marathon (490), Plataiai (479) and Mykale (479). That much is true. But they were victorious in pitched battle at Ephesos (498), the Marsyas (497), Labraunda (497), Malene (493) and Thermopylae (480). They had successfully conquered the Greek cities of Asia Minor three times over, and had reduced major settlements like Miletos, Naxos and Eretria by siege assault. At the time of the battle of Marathon, Persian armies enjoyed an unbroken victory streak against Greek opponents; as Herodotos himself points out, the very name "Persian" caused fear among the Greeks, and the Athenians were admired simply for standing their ground. Marathon was the first victory of a Greek army over a Persian one in 56 years of intermittent conflict. The problem we have is that the Greeks conveniently chose not to explain in detail the battles in which they lost. That's why we have we have entire books, movies, and wiki articles on lost battles like Thermopylae, a strategically inconsequential battle, but almost nothing on Naxos, the entire reconquest of Ionia, or Ephesos.

Read that in Dan Carlin’s voice

Sorry, Thermopylae is a bad example since it was indeed the only Greek defeat that is highly spoken about, and was promoted by Greek historians only due to the fact that it was a valiant last stance, although later authors tried to write it off merely as a heroic delay tactic (it absolutely wasn't, as Herodotus even claims the plan was to hold the pass indefinitely), but you get the point.

Persia attempted to knock around some trading city states on the periphery of the civilized world, as they did succesfully against Egypt, their rivals in Mesopotamia and various Kingdoms around the world, and failed. It was not a numbers game or due to geographical constraints like their back and forth in India or difficulty catching up to desert and steppe peoples. Persia was a Mediterranean power itself with a large navy while Greece was rich and close to the heartlands of their empire. Persia could and did support 10000s there through supply by sea for long periods.

The only explanation as to how Greece did not become part of the Persian empire is that they swung above their weight militarily, which can be seen quite visibly in their armored hoplites. Yes, this is a simplistic observation, however facts are facts even if it is some kind of blow to your ego to make the same observation a brainlet could. Yes, their advantages didn't always work, as you rightly point out, however they weren't a pushover unlike the other polities within Persia's grasp. This is made more meaningful by the fact many Greeks were neutral or submitted to Persia and benefited from their decision while Athens consistently undermined Persia, seeking to expand trade and their colonies in Anatolia under their noses.

Athens was actively hostile to Persia. Why? Because they could. Greek bees stung the Persian lion and the lion bashed the beehive, but soon the hive was restored and the lion decided to just keep away.

I thought the linothorax was more a Hellenistic era thing.

Greece was poor as shit actually, and theres no solid reason to think the greeks punched above their weight in terms of warfare. Their way of battle was not notably different to that of many other cultures. Dont forget a very large part of the greek world WAS part of the persian empire

Nah it was around for ages. Hoplite gear did tend to get lighter and lighter as time wore on though. Less bronze, more linen, then no linen. By the time Phillip conquered greece the average hoplite wore no armour at all other than a small helmet and not always even that.

The greatest fighting force of hoplites in history (Xenophons 10000) barely had 50 cuirasses between them

And the majority of Greek troops weren't?

>So the total of all the light-armed men who were fighters was sixty-nine thousand and five hundred, and of the whole Greek army mustered at Plataea, men-at-arms and light-armed fighting men together, eleven times ten thousand less eighteen hundred. The Thespians who were present were one hundred and ten thousand in number, for the survivors1 of the Thespians were also present with the army, eighteen hundred in number. These then were arrayed and encamped by the Asopus. Hdt. 9.30.1

Herodotus is clearly telling us that the majority of the Greek's army was also shitty conscripts with no armor. The Persians also had a core of heavy infantry, their immortals who wore armor made up of iron scales, and their levied infantry such as the Egyptians and the Assyrians.

There was nothing special about the Greek's army.

Who

Firstly, those "Light-armed men" are not conscripts. They are skirmishers and soldiers that don't have the full panoply. Closest to conscripts is the Helots.

How about motivation? It is a universal fact of military history that morale wins more battles than skill at arms. The Greeks had an established culture of service and the "glory" of fighting in war to defend ones homeland being the greatest thing in life. The Persian conscripts by contrast, were in a foreign land, having been made to serve a foreign king, in a war where they were unlikely to gain loot or profit (Persian officers and regiments often had first dibs). These things make for a poor soldier.

>outclassed
in what way? the greeks had better weapons, better armour, better shields and professional armies.

the persian forces were mostly levies who'd never held a sword

>I'm struggling to come up with something the greeks did better, except possibly the mindless frontal charge.
They. Kept. Winning. It doesn't matter if their tactics are more simple. In an age where professional troops are not the norm, simple is probable better.

>Persians beat greeks a lot more than they lost to them
You keep ignoring the entire war of the Delian League, and everything after it. Why?

>Ionia did not join persia willingly, and when it revolted en mass it was curbstomped
Most of the Delian League did not join Athens willingly, and revolted en masse when they were beaten by the Lacedemonians. Which battles did Athens conquer half of Greece with?

>But your happy to take his word for the battles the greeks won?
No, I'm not, which is why I focus on later conflicts, ones that Herodotus does not talk about. Ones, I've noticed, you have yet to respond to.

>The greeks lost Artemisium
If you believe Herodotus, no they did not, especially since the likely point was to swing around and secure a landing point behind the contemporary Thermopolaye, which they failed to do.

>Right back at ya, I never suggested the persians had any greek mercenaries at all.
Then why respond to a claim of "Persian use of Greek hoplite mercenaries is of a much later era than Xerxes" with the mention of Greek troops. What the hell are you trying to say if you are in fact claiming those Ionians are not mercenaries?

one word answer: phalanx