Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles
#32
Khairete!

Interesting thread, and one that interests me, because I'm facing a Nanowrimo challenge this November which is close to this subject.

Quote:... The Persians may not have had a good feel for the capability of motivated heavy infantry, but they were quit good at logistics.

Well, considering the Persians (including general Mardonius, Artabazus, etc) had first hand, abundant experience fighting against hellenic armies (since the 512 Danube and Thrace expedition to the battle of Marathon, including the whole of the Ionian Revolt, which comprised armies of most Ionian cities, plus Athens and Eretria, Chiprus, and most cities in the Helespont, Ionia, Lidya, Caria, and a good deal of the Cyclades), I fail to see why would the Persians fail to have a perfect feeling for the motivation of Greek heavy infantry.

Let's not forget that many Greek armies were part of the Persian army at the Xerxes's expedition, including most Ionian subjects, Thrace (if they could be considered Greek, which probably not), Macedonia, Thessaly and maybe even Boeotian.

Quote:
aryaman2:1jz0kmd0 Wrote:Nature of Persian army (This is main Delbruck theory, besides logistics) The size of the Persian empire has nothing to do with his army, that was a "feudal" army composed by the noble persians and their retainers, together with some non Persian vassal lords and their retainers. The basic component was cavalry, so it must be a small army by nature

Why must a cavalry army be small?

Because horses need lots of food, water and care. Way more that onagers (for example, which would be a big part of the supply train of any Asiatic army), and are usually only useful for limited war operations (pursuit of a rotting army being the most prominent, some other limited roles by the time, as flanking operations, as mobile archery platforms, or, in some special times, as a hammer against infantry formation, even when cataphracti weren't that useful then as they would be under the Sassanids).

Infantry is easier to manage, easier to move around, basically as fast or even faster for the longer distances, with lower water and food needs, and just basic care.

There's a reason cavalry was the realm of knights and rich men for most of Human History, and it's that.

Hope this helps.

PS- thanks for the links, always useful! Smile
Episkopos P. Lilius Frugius Simius Excalibor, :. V. S. C., Pontifex Maximus, Max Disc Eccl
David S. de Lis - my blog: <a class="postlink" href="http://praeter.blogspot.com/">http://praeter.blogspot.com/
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by Anonymous - 10-17-2006, 09:50 AM
Persian Size - by Sean-Dogg - 10-19-2006, 04:33 AM
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by P. Lilius Frugius Simius - 10-20-2006, 08:59 AM
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by Anonymous - 10-22-2006, 07:00 PM
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by Anonymous - 10-23-2006, 06:20 PM
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by Anonymous - 10-25-2006, 10:35 AM
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by Anonymous - 10-25-2006, 04:30 PM
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by Anonymous - 10-26-2006, 08:35 AM
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by Anonymous - 10-26-2006, 08:49 AM
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by Anonymous - 10-26-2006, 09:00 AM
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by Anonymous - 10-29-2006, 06:11 PM
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by Anonymous - 10-29-2006, 06:22 PM
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by Anonymous - 10-29-2006, 06:31 PM
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by Anonymous - 10-30-2006, 08:41 AM
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by Anonymous - 10-30-2006, 08:55 AM
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by Anonymous - 10-30-2006, 10:41 PM
Re: Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles - by Anonymous - 11-25-2006, 09:24 AM

Forum Jump: