Thread replies: 21
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
Anonymous
Observations of Ancient Greece and Persia 2016-10-05 01:25:01 Post No. 1780012
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Observations of Ancient Greece and Persia 2016-10-05 01:25:01 Post No. 1780012
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: niccolo_machiavelli_statue.jpg (166KB, 1089x1088px) Image search:
[Google]
166KB, 1089x1088px
I have read in Warfare of the Ancient World by Pen and Sword books that both civilizations had different ways of fighting. The Persians had a main emphasis on light infantry, light cavalry, and heavy cavalry while the Greeks had a main emphasis on heavy infantry.
Now, this brings me to my second point here. The way these two civilizations fought really intrigues me because the Greek citystate's way of fighting often occurred in mountainous, isolated areas where the individual had to rely more on himself and become more independent as a phalanx unit in a formation. The mountainous islands pretty much made them self-sufficient fighters.
However, this completely contrasts with the way the Persians fought, where the different groups of units had to depend on each other to succeed, the noble horsemen had to protect/coordinate with the underling light inf below them to victory and vice versa.
Now this is very interesting because the Greek citystates were prone to be more freedom-oriented in their societies, where the individual was favored, while the Persian Empire was alot more hierarchical and collectivist in the way they dealt with things, and so the group was favored more than the individual.
So I suppose the question is this, /his/, does the way a civilization fight tell you alot about how they themselves function in peace time?
>>
>>1780012
I don't think so. Anabasis tells you persians are gutless cowards who like chariots.
>>
I think the more interesting question is why the hell did the Persians fight so poorly in the mountainous terrain of Greece, considering that Persia itself is located in the Iranian Plateau, which is like 80% mountains. You'd assume that a group of people would be accustomed to fighting in the territory where they originate from, no?
Could it be because the Persians never had to actually fight in Persia itself?
>>
>>1780012
>Now, this brings me to my second point here. The way these two civilizations fought really intrigues me because the Greek citystate's way of fighting often occurred in mountainous, isolated areas where the individual had to rely more on himself and become more independent as a phalanx unit in a formation. The mountainous islands pretty much made them self-sufficient fighters.
Wut? A phalanx is one of the most teamwork oriented modes of fighting in existence. You very literally cover the guy next to you, and in turn the guy to your right covers you with his shield (unless you're the poor bastard all the way on the rightmost end, sucks to be you)
If the formation doesn't move together, you are utterly, completely fucked. Far more so than people fighting in a looser manner, or were mounted.
>>
>>
>>1780033
I understand you had to work in a team but the very fact that Greeks chose heavy infantry as their main force tells me that they preferred to be hands on and tight in melee with their enemies which is a much more personal relationship than having skirmishing, fast troops like light infantry, or cavalry.
Understand what I'm saying here or no?
>>
>>1780073
Which means that they had a more individualistic way of fighting because it was so personal.
Don't know if I'm making sense here.
>>
>>1780080
You aren't making much sense.
>>
>>1780111
Sorry, I thought I had a historical theory formulated here but I guess you don't understand what I'm saying.
>>
>>1780073
>>1780080
>>1780122
No, I understand what you're saying, it's just nonsense.
Greek employment of close ranked heavy infantry had a lot more to do with the material factors extant in Grecian war, the narrow passes making it very difficult to actually maneuver skirmishing troops behind your phalanx when the opposition charged without disrupting your own formation's cohesiveness and being worse than useless.
They had a very marginal agricultural civilization, and mostly relied upon militias, meaning wars HAD to be short, as you couldn't keep your army out in the field come harvest time or everyone would starve: This in turn meant that you needed means to inflict a decisive decision ,one way or the other, very quickly. A mostly pastoral society can go for a raid and counterraid sort of war much more easily.
It isn't because they were magically had a more individualistic culture so they decided to fight hand to hand because that's somehow more personal and individualistic than fighting with missile weapons.
>>
File: ztlgaah.png (139KB, 917x871px) Image search:
[Google]
139KB, 917x871px
>>1780148
Damn, well, atleast I tried to think.
Th-thanks for correcting me, smarter historian.
>>
>>1780012
>become more independent as a phalanx unit in a formation
omfg
>>
>>1780224
I know, I understand I failed in creating a sensible discussion but atleast I learned something today from my stupid thread.
>>
>>1780012
The phalanx was superior to the Persian light infantry due to troop quality and group cohesion. The phalanx was the opposite of a formation that allowed individuals to be independent. It was a formation where hundreds of men moved as if they had one mind and one purpose, armed with the same weapons and armor.
Oh and they almost always fought on flat land because uneven terrain weakened the cohesion of the formation.
>>
>>1780612
To be fair, earlier battles prior to the first invasion of Greece by the Persians had the Persians/Medes repeatedly beating the Ionian Greeks due to effective use of foot archers and horse archers. Persians should've kept the range game.
>>
>>1780693
>feel good about now being slightly less dumb
Right the fuck on.
Them warm and fuzzy knowledge feels.
>>
>>1780237
Logistical demands/constraints/flexibility >>>>>>>>>> Ideology/Personality/Literally any other factor imaginable
Every time.
>>
>>1780012
There 3 types of persian warriors: noble horseman, archers and spearmen.All other in persian army was not persian.Greek phalanx can be destroyes by cavalry rush, but usually 1 horseman fight with few hoplits, thats why they lose.
>>
it has to do with the terrain and also how ineffective Calvary is against a phalanx in such terrain.
>>
File: 1473960905605.jpg (2MB, 1734x779px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 1734x779px
>>1780237
Just for admitting that you deserve a damn gold star. This is how the board improves.
Thread posts: 21
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3