+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Greek Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Greeks always fought outnumbered? (/showthread.php?tid=19696)
Greeks always fought outnumbered? - Darth_Roach - 10-19-2011
According to modern historians as well as ancient ones, Greeks always fought outnumbered against barbarians, even when it makes little sense that the enemy be able to outnumber them.
One wonders how? And why didn't everyone just roll over and die upon seeing Greeks anyway?
Re: Greeks always fought outnumbered? - Macedon - 10-20-2011
I think this would be a very extreme position. Who says so? There are many examples of Greeks fighting while having numerical advantage.
First of all, we would have to exclude every conflict between Greeks, since one of them would probably have a numerical advantage...
Second, we have many historical (and mythical actually) examples of the opposite. Those examples would include many battles in Sicily and Magna Graecia, battles against relatively weak opponents, like certain Thracian tribes, battles of the Macedonians and later Hellenistic kingdoms against many opponents, like the Romans for example. Major battles that jump to mind are Pydna and Mantinea, Alexander certainly had numerical advantage in many of his combat actions too. I do not think that the Greeks were outnumbered during the Troyan War either as far as they maintained. Pyrrhus might have been at a slight disadvantage in Italy but not one that really mattered (maybe a 10%?). Philip had a bit more men than Vardyllis (Illyrians) etc etc etc. I think that such a position would be a very gross and useless generalization.
As to the psychological impact having to fight against Greeks sometimes had, this would of course vary, but sometimes it was really decisive. The incidents of Greek mercenaries fighting against Persians in Egypt comes to mind. Disguised as Egyptians they commenced battle. The Persians are attested to have fought well and bravely and stood well against the Greeks. Then, the Egyptians came wearing Greek arms and the sight alone was enough for the Persians to break, all th time thinking that the Greeks were actually Egyptians... Xenophon's account of the mock battle of the 10,000 against the forces of some queen in Asia Minor also shows that the sight of a Greek army could alone sometimes be fearful...
Of course all this is not new. Romans also had that effect on occasion, Huns did too and many more examples could be brought forward from many eras as to how the fame of an opponent could really psychologically devastate another.
Re: Greeks always fought outnumbered? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 10-20-2011
I have the same queries...
Who is proposing this position?
There were periods when the Greeks were outnumbered, yes, but as Macedon says, there are also engagments when they were not!
Is this in reference to none Greek opposition?
I imagine the Celtic invasions were possibly by superior numbers.
Greece always has had a small population, I suppose due to the limits of the
sustainable population the land can support. One reason for sending out colonists.
Re: Greeks always fought outnumbered? - Sean Manning - 10-20-2011
The short answer is that we don't know why Greek hoplites were so often victorious against Punic, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian hoplites. Not enough work has been done on Iron Age warfare in the Near East (its especially hard to find information on Egyptian warfare in this period). Similarly, without sources on the barbarian side its hard to know what to do with the trope that Greek/Macedonian/Roman armies were always outnumbered. Its a trope that Canadians are polite and obsessed with hockey; neither is always true, but a future historian would be wrong to conclude that this was a literary stereotype and that clearly Canadians were all rude and had no interest in team sports. I am working on a MA thesis which will increase our knowledge of how the Persian logistics system worked. The only thing we can say for sure is that Greeks were richer than their neighbours so could afford more and better kit.
Re: Greeks always fought outnumbered? - Darth_Roach - 10-20-2011
Quote:I think this would be a very extreme position. Who says so? There are many examples of Greeks fighting while having numerical advantage.
First of all, we would have to exclude every conflict between Greeks, since one of them would probably have a numerical advantage...
Second, we have many historical (and mythical actually) examples of the opposite. Those examples would include many battles in Sicily and Magna Graecia, battles against relatively weak opponents, like certain Thracian tribes, battles of the Macedonians and later Hellenistic kingdoms against many opponents, like the Romans for example. Major battles that jump to mind are Pydna and Mantinea, Alexander certainly had numerical advantage in many of his combat actions too. I do not think that the Greeks were outnumbered during the Troyan War either as far as they maintained. Pyrrhus might have been at a slight disadvantage in Italy but not one that really mattered (maybe a 10%?). Philip had a bit more men than Vardyllis (Illyrians) etc etc etc. I think that such a position would be a very gross and useless generalization.
As to the psychological impact having to fight against Greeks sometimes had, this would of course vary, but sometimes it was really decisive. The incidents of Greek mercenaries fighting against Persians in Egypt comes to mind. Disguised as Egyptians they commenced battle. The Persians are attested to have fought well and bravely and stood well against the Greeks. Then, the Egyptians came wearing Greek arms and the sight alone was enough for the Persians to break, all th time thinking that the Greeks were actually Egyptians... Xenophon's account of the mock battle of the 10,000 against the forces of some queen in Asia Minor also shows that the sight of a Greek army could alone sometimes be fearful...
Of course all this is not new. Romans also had that effect on occasion, Huns did too and many more examples could be brought forward from many eras as to how the fame of an opponent could really psychologically devastate another.
You may or may bot have noticed that I was being somewhat sarcastic. My personal approach is that no matter who fought whom, the side with the greater numbers prevailed most of the time.
The psychological effect of fighting Greeks is rather doubtable - especially if it comes from Greek sources.
A good example is Cunaxa - Xenophon states the barbarians fled from the sight of Greeks, while modern analysis suggests it was in fact a token force, which retreated to pull the hoplites away from battle, and that Artaxerxes may have wanted to preserve as much of the rebel army as possible for his upcoming campaign against Egypt.
Then there is the obvious point that no one likes to speak of their own defeats too much.
Re: Greeks always fought outnumbered? - Giannis K. Hoplite - 10-20-2011
OK, you want to make a point, but what exactly is it?
Re: Greeks always fought outnumbered? - Macedon - 10-20-2011
Quote:You may or may bot have noticed that I was being somewhat sarcastic. My personal approach is that no matter who fought whom, the side with the greater numbers prevailed most of the time.
The psychological effect of fighting Greeks is rather doubtable - especially if it comes from Greek sources.
A good example is Cunaxa - Xenophon states the barbarians fled from the sight of Greeks, while modern analysis suggests it was in fact a token force, which retreated to pull the hoplites away from battle, and that Artaxerxes may have wanted to preserve as much of the rebel army as possible for his upcoming campaign against Egypt.
Then there is the obvious point that no one likes to speak of their own defeats too much.
I still do not understand the OP of this post. You said that this is what ancient and modern historians claimed and, to be frank, I thought you believed that this was some kind of general consensus I do not know of. Why being sarcastic about anything that is not maintained?
You may choose to believe that the reputation of an army does not psychologically affect its opponent but, again in my opinion, it would be wrong. It does not matter if 90% of our sources are Greek, we would know very few things about anything in the European past were these sources not available. I think that there are countless examples of armies having to fight against opponents reputed for their fierceness or ability, especially if they have first hand experienced defeat by them, to experience deterioration, even being crushed by fear alone. Many times we read about battles where a side did not stand to fight but fled as soon as battle was about to commence. We read about battles where one side was so afraid that low morale was indeed an important factor to be reckoned with. This has nothing to do with Greeks in general and in all eras. Reputation changes with time and the timeframe you seem to have set is too wide to draw any conclusions from.
In the time of the 10,000 the reputation of the Greeks in the Persian Empire was indeed very high. You may choose not to believe Greek sources but then you will have to discount most things we know about anything regarding those times in that part of the world. Why does it sound strange to you that the the reputation of the Spartans, the Macedonians etc played a part in at least some of the battles they gave? Modern analysis of Cunaxa does not show what you propose. This is a certain interpretation, not the consensus and certainly not stemming from the evidence. The 10,000 marched through the Empire all the way to Asia Minor fighting their way. There was never shortage of Greek mercenaries in Persia. If Artaxerxes wanted Greek mercs, he would have gotten them. If he could beat them, he would have, instead of allowing them to rampage through his lands. Once beaten, he could have shown mercy and would have brought them over to his side. As for drawing them away, according to Xenophon, the battle was over before that. According to him, it was the tradition of the Persian kings to fight in the first line that cost Cyrus the battle. Anyways, as I already said, the degree of anyone's acceptance of the word of the sources is a very long discussion and can be based on multiple factors and experiences. Just be certain to apply your principals to the whole corpus. The true story and Xenophon's reliability on the 10,000 would indeed be a very interesting discussion, although I do not think that this was the OP here.
It is certainly not true that numbers alone suffice to win a battle. Again, the examples are too many to count and from any eras. Greeks did beat opponents with more numerous armies. So did the Romans, very often. So did the Persians themselves before the Empire. So did the Mongols, the Byzantines, the English, the Germans, the US... There are many factors that contribute to a victory on the battlefield, although of course manpower is one.
I really do not get the OP, the Original Point. Has anyone (historians, members of this forum, you) ever claimed that Greeks never had to fight a battle, since their opponents always or often fled away? The Persians fought bravely in many battles during the Persian and Alexandrian wars and are indeed being praised by the Greek sources. The Illyrians, the Thracians, the Romans, the Celts, the Carthaginians, the Italians, the Indians... all those and other peoples gave fierce fights and often beat the Greeks (of course this we know primarily by Greek sources, so we can indeed doubt that, maybe the Greeks did indeed beat all...). Again, if your point is that Greeks are reported to always have been outnumbered, then I have to disagree. Battles with the Greeks having the numerical advantage are indeed mentioned.
Re: Greeks always fought outnumbered? - Darth_Roach - 10-20-2011
Rampage through his lands?
Do you realize that the hoplites were not his enemy? After Cyrus is dealt with, why bother with the mercenaries? Not to mention that the hoplites did not fight all the way - they were directed to the mountains. You have to understand the king's point of view: his brother revolts, and hires a lot of additional troops, many of them highly trained and dangerous (the hoplites). Now, those men are bound by no obligation to fight other than money. So now he's killed the usurper, and has many pressing matters at hand, like recovering the western satrapies, redistributing power and dealing with other revolts (like Egypt). A band of mercenaries who want nothing but to go back home is the absolute least of his worries.
Yes, I know, the hoplites were harassed by hostile locals and troops, but there is nothing to suggest they were operating on the king's accord. Nor did they actually fight on the way to Cunaxa, since it appears Artaxerxes prepared to fight in Mesopotamia where he held all the advantages - supply lines, reserves, local support, secure back and flanks and a battlefield perfectly suited for his needs (large scale cavalry operations and few features to protect the enemy flanks).
And I never said that Greece's opponents always fled. I did say it is accepted by most historians that the Greeks more often than not defeated far superior numbers, and that they could only lose through treachery and swarming.
Re: Greeks always fought outnumbered? - Macedon - 10-20-2011
Quote:Rampage through his lands?
Do you realize that the hoplites were not his enemy? After Cyrus is dealt with, why bother with the mercenaries? Not to mention that the hoplites did not fight all the way - they were directed to the mountains. You have to understand the king's point of view: his brother revolts, and hires a lot of additional troops, many of them highly trained and dangerous (the hoplites). Now, those men are bound by no obligation to fight other than money. So now he's killed the usurper, and has many pressing matters at hand, like recovering the western satrapies, redistributing power and dealing with other revolts (like Egypt). A band of mercenaries who want nothing but to go back home is the absolute least of his worries.
Yes, I know, the hoplites were harassed by hostile locals and troops, but there is nothing to suggest they were operating on the king's accord. Nor did they actually fight on the way to Cunaxa, since it appears Artaxerxes prepared to fight in Mesopotamia where he held all the advantages - supply lines, reserves, local support, secure back and flanks and a battlefield perfectly suited for his needs (large scale cavalry operations and few features to protect the enemy flanks).
And I never said that Greece's opponents always fled. I did say it is accepted by most historians that the Greeks more often than not defeated far superior numbers, and that they could only lose through treachery and swarming.
Again, you have not explained the OP... Please do. What is it you want to discuss. I find a discussion on the presence and utilization of the 10,000 very interesting and I urge you to make a new thread where we can discuss it in length if that is what you want. But regarding THIS thread, say what your point is.
If your point is that "it is accepted by most historians that the Greeks more often than not defeated far superior numbers, and that they could only lose through treachery and swarming." then I first have to disagree that most historians accept this position and, as I understand you do too, I also personally disagree with those voicing it. Was this your point? Then we all agree here that this was not the case.
Do strike up a discussion on the 10,000. It will be very interesting to see where all our opinions lie regarding the various aspects of the story.
Re: Greeks always fought outnumbered? - Darth_Roach - 10-20-2011
Quote:Again, you have not explained the OP... Please do. What is it you want to discuss. I find a discussion on the presence and utilization of the 10,000 very interesting and I urge you to make a new thread where we can discuss it in length if that is what you want. But regarding THIS thread, say what your point is.
If your point is that "it is accepted by most historians that the Greeks more often than not defeated far superior numbers, and that they could only lose through treachery and swarming." then I first have to disagree that most historians accept this position and, as I understand you do too, I also personally disagree with those voicing it. Was this your point? Then we all agree here that this was not the case.
Do strike up a discussion on the 10,000. It will be very interesting to see where all our opinions lie regarding the various aspects of the story.
Hmm... So we agree. If that is so, there is to discuss relevant to this thread. I could make a thread about the revolt of Cyrus the younger, and I will when I have time - possibly tomorrow.
Re: Greeks always fought outnumbered? - Macedon - 10-20-2011
Quote:Macedon post=298383 Wrote:Again, you have not explained the OP... Please do. What is it you want to discuss. I find a discussion on the presence and utilization of the 10,000 very interesting and I urge you to make a new thread where we can discuss it in length if that is what you want. But regarding THIS thread, say what your point is.
If your point is that "it is accepted by most historians that the Greeks more often than not defeated far superior numbers, and that they could only lose through treachery and swarming." then I first have to disagree that most historians accept this position and, as I understand you do too, I also personally disagree with those voicing it. Was this your point? Then we all agree here that this was not the case.
Do strike up a discussion on the 10,000. It will be very interesting to see where all our opinions lie regarding the various aspects of the story.
Hmm... So we agree. If that is so, there is to discuss relevant to this thread. I could make a thread about the revolt of Cyrus the younger, and I will when I have time - possibly tomorrow.
Of course!
One more thing, who are these historians who make that absolute and thus absurd claim? My disagreement only lies with your assertion that there is a consensus of historians regarding that, in my and obviously your opinion, fallacy.
Btw, are you really 15 years old as your profile suggests or is it a mistake? I do not know many children that young that occupy themselves with such issues...
Re: Greeks always fought outnumbered? - Darth_Roach - 10-20-2011
Now that I am looking into, it's increasingly harder to find such.
Obviously any historians advising history channel.
Re: Greeks always fought outnumbered? - Macedon - 10-20-2011
Hahahaha!
Yea, documentaries tend to sometimes voice too bold/unscholarly/plainly stupid opinions.... :lol: :lol:
Re: Greeks always fought outnumbered? - alexander the great - 10-26-2011
Obviously the Greeks were not always outnumbered, and if we are join to call Alexander The Great a greek then of course they weren't, just look at Hydapses River. But I think that the documentary was just trying to get people who didn't know a lot about the field to buy the dvd. Btw, what documentary is it?
Re: Greeks always fought outnumbered? - alexander the great - 10-26-2011
Yeah, the history channel isn't the most reliable. :lol: :lol: :lol: