Why were the Persians unable to subdue the Greeks

Joined Jan 2011
16,917 Posts | 1,873+
Roughly 150 years before the return match decisively won by Alexander the Great, the Persians tried to subdue Greece but failed.

The first attempt was stopped at Marathon in 490 BC, the second one was stopped after 3 main engagements.. Thermopylae (of 300 spartans fame), Salamis (naval battle) and Platea (479 BC)

At the time the Persian empire was probably the largest entity in the world by any measure. It covered an area equivalent to roughly 70% of the USA -about 6 million square kilometers- from today's Pakistan to Egypt including Iran, Turkey, Irak and most of the middle east. Population estimate range from 30 to over 50 million (the world's population at the time was estimated at less than 150 million). The Greek world in contrast had less than 5 million citizens (upper estimate). Seemingly your typical David vs Goliath situation

Why then did the Persians fail ?

Possibilities:

- This was not a "life or death" struggle for the Persians and so (despite inflated claims by Greek propagandists) they invested only the amount of resources (men, ships etc..) that could be eventually paid back had Greece come under their control... (similarly although the US had the capability to send -say- 2 million men to Iraq, it only send about 200, 000..... higher numbers would have been too costly to support... not to the mention the political problems)
- The Persians were already over extended and their resources were needed to keep the Empire together... Hence the expeditionary force to Greece was limited
- The main Persian military strength lay in their cavalry (of which at the time the Greeks had none to speak of)....but the terrain in Greece did not lend itself to extensive use of cavalry (though its presence did create problems for the Greeks)
- The difficult terrain and the limited agricultural output in Greece proper made it very difficult to support extended military operations by large forces

What are your thoughts ?
 
Joined Dec 2009
19,933 Posts | 19+
Why then did the Persians fail ?

Possibilities:

- This was not a "life or death" struggle for the Persians and so (despite inflated claims by Greek propagandists) they invested only the amount of resources (men, ships etc..) that could be eventually paid back had Greece come under their control... (similarly although the US had the capability to send -say- 2 million men to Iraq, it only send about 200, 000..... higher numbers would have been too costly to support... not to the mention the political problems)
- The Persians were already over extended and their resources were needed to keep the Empire together... Hence the expeditionary force to Greece was limited
- The main Persian military strength lay in their cavalry (of which at the time the Greeks had none to speak of)....but the terrain in Greece did not lend itself to extensive use of cavalry (though its presence did create problems for the Greeks)
- The difficult terrain and the limited agricultural output in Greece proper made it very difficult to support extended military operations by large forces

What are your thoughts ?
IMHO it's an excellent summary; we mostly agree.

IMHO the four factors mentioned above were relevant, especially the second one.

BTW the Roman Empire was another excellent (and far better attested) ancient example on the first two limitations.

On the third point, some Hellenes actually had a nice cavalry (e.g. Makedonians, Thessalians & Boeotians); they simply happened to have sided with Xerxes by 480/479 BC.

As a fifth and probably critical limitation, the Persian navy was usually no match against the Hellenic (especially the Athenian) fleets.
Under such conditions, any Persian army on the other side of the Hellespont would have been permanently at the risk of being isolated.
That should have been the main reason why the Hellenes of Asia Minor were actually duly subdued, while those of Hellas proper were not.
 
Joined Sep 2010
286 Posts | 1+
The Persians foolishly prayed to Ahura-Mazda whereas the Greeks wisely prayed to Zeus.

Zeus: 1 -- Ahura-Mazda: 0
 
Joined Dec 2010
2,282 Posts | 3+
California
All of those possibilities were factors of the Persian Empire's failure. I'll add equipment and training to the list. The Persians, armed with not much more than cloth, light weapons and wicker shields, compared to the iron armor and weapons of the Hellenistic peoples. The Greeks and Spartans were also far better trained infantrymen whereas the Persian infantry was basically rabble.
 
Joined Dec 2009
19,933 Posts | 19+
All of those possibilities were factors of the Persian Empire's failure. I'll add equipment and training to the list. The Persians, armed with not much more than cloth, light weapons and wicker shields, compared to the iron armor and weapons of the Hellenistic peoples. The Greeks and Spartans were also far better trained infantrymen whereas the Persian infantry was basically rabble.
The point is that we positively know that the Persians actually had a nice infantry at their disposal, if for no other reason at least for their Hellenic allies, subjects and mercenaries.

(Who of course naturally "wisely" prayed to Zeus & family, not Ahura-Mazda :)).
 
Joined Apr 2010
16,748 Posts | 16+
Slovakia
All of those possibilities were factors of the Persian Empire's failure. I'll add equipment and training to the list. The Persians, armed with not much more than cloth, light weapons and wicker shields, compared to the iron armor and weapons of the Hellenistic peoples. The Greeks and Spartans were also far better trained infantrymen whereas the Persian infantry was basically rabble.
First of all, persians were using armour, they just often wore cloths over it to prevent overheating. Same reasons why Arabs wore cloth over their armour and why Crusaders adopted such practice when coming to Palestine.

Second, Greeks after Persian wars striped themselves of armour. Spartans setting example and others flowing suit. So typical hoplite of Peloponesian wars wore some kind of lighter helmet and no body armour.

61nocN9ckTL.jpg


This sudden lightening of equipment is seen by some historians as result of experience gained during Persian war or perhaps experience from Thrace.

It wasn't until Macedonian conquest and Alexanders wars that heavier armour came to use again, including cuiras.
 
Joined Jan 2011
131 Posts | 0+
Romania
As others have said, persian tactics were ill-suited for fighting the greeks.

The persian army was built around powerful cavalry(many of whom were skirmishers as opposed to true shock cavarly) and light infantry (with many archers). These tactics worked fine in Asia, but not against the greeks.

Never before (to my knwoedge at least) had the Persian army fought against an enemy that made use of massed formations of heavy infantry. The hoplite phalanx was nor very susceptible to Persian ranged attacks and also, the Persian light infanty was ill-suited for holding the line against it.

This IMHO was the main weakness of the Persian army at the time of the invasion of Greece: lack of a heavy infantry that could stand up to the hoplites. The persians themselves seem to have acknowledged this fact as well, as shown by the presence of large numbers of greek mercenaries in their later armies.
 
Joined Apr 2010
16,748 Posts | 16+
Slovakia
The persian army was built around powerful cavalry(many of whom were skirmishers as opposed to true shock cavarly) and light infantry (with many archers). These tactics worked fine in Asia, but not against the greeks.
Except there was plenty of Greeks in Asia and Persians fought them few times. There were other nations in Asia which fought Greek-like style, Lidians, Phrigians and others. All of then defeated by Persians.

Moreover Persian army included many Greeks and Greek style heavy footmen. Even some cities of Greece itself sided with Persians.

And last, Greek soldiers and their fighting stile was ill suited to fight in Greece itself. Greek phalanx evolved in very special conditions of nearly ritual fighting and was noted to not be very suitable for mountainous terrain Greece was.

Structure wise, Persian army was superior to Greek one. It included light and missile troops, heavy elite infantry, abundance of all sorts of cavalry. Engineers and support troops.
 
Joined Dec 2010
2,282 Posts | 3+
California
Except there was plenty of Greeks in Asia and Persians fought them few times. There were other nations in Asia which fought Greek-like style, Lidians, Phrigians and others. All of then defeated by Persians.

Moreover Persian army included many Greeks and Greek style heavy footmen. Even some cities of Greece itself sided with Persians.

And last, Greek soldiers and their fighting stile was ill suited to fight in Greece itself. Greek phalanx evolved in very special conditions of nearly ritual fighting and was noted to not be very suitable for mountainous terrain Greece was.

Structure wise, Persian army was superior to Greek one. It included light and missile troops, heavy elite infantry, abundance of all sorts of cavalry. Engineers and support troops.

What about thermopylae? That suited the spartan phalanx well
 
Joined Nov 2009
8,402 Posts | 59+
Canada
Except there was plenty of Greeks in Asia and Persians fought them few times. There were other nations in Asia which fought Greek-like style, Lidians, Phrigians and others. All of then defeated by Persians.

Moreover Persian army included many Greeks and Greek style heavy footmen. Even some cities of Greece itself sided with Persians.

And last, Greek soldiers and their fighting stile was ill suited to fight in Greece itself. Greek phalanx evolved in very special conditions of nearly ritual fighting and was noted to not be very suitable for mountainous terrain Greece was.

Structure wise, Persian army was superior to Greek one. It included light and missile troops, heavy elite infantry, abundance of all sorts of cavalry. Engineers and support troops.

Terrain is a huge factor in Greece's favour. I know that coastal regions of Turkey and Greece are indistinguishable from pictures,but look closely and you will find that the Greek mainland has far more narrow valleys and craggy passes, while the passes in Turkish coastline are more gentle-sloping.

As such, you could 'wedge' a phalanx between the passes and not fear being flanked (Thermopylae) while this was a much harder task in Turkey.

Also, the continuity of Turkey with Persia ( at that time, Anatolia was mostly Iranian- being core territorries of the Median Empire) meant that the cost of campaigning in coastal Turkey would be much cheaper than supplying troops overseas to the Greek mainland.

Lastly, Mercenaries were rather useless: the Greek mercenaries in Persian armies did well to quell rebellions and deal with the Egyptians, because the mercenaries had equipment advantage. Against the Greeks, who were identically clad, the equipment advantage is negated. Plus, mercenaries fight for gold- as such, they were keener to survive to enjoy their gold, as opposed to the nationalist/loyal troops who'd die for the glory of motherland.

As history of warfare shows, mercenaries are often great as a finishing tool or in an uneven contest. But when the contest is in favour of the opposition or its a fierce struggle, mercenaries are usually the first to break and run, since their command structure does not even consider 'dying to the last man' mentality that nationalist troops do.
 
Joined Jan 2010
2,666 Posts | 1+
the Polis
Except there was plenty of Greeks in Asia and Persians fought them few times. There were other nations in Asia which fought Greek-like style, Lidians, Phrigians and others. All of then defeated by Persians.

Moreover Persian army included many Greeks and Greek style heavy footmen. Even some cities of Greece itself sided with Persians.

And last, Greek soldiers and their fighting stile was ill suited to fight in Greece itself. Greek phalanx evolved in very special conditions of nearly ritual fighting and was noted to not be very suitable for mountainous terrain Greece was.

Structure wise, Persian army was superior to Greek one. It included light and missile troops, heavy elite infantry, abundance of all sorts of cavalry. Engineers and support troops.
plus that at least Minor Asia is also a mountainous area, like Greece, and it subdued relatively easily.

Any underestimation of Persians' capability in war is beyond reason. We speak about a vast empire, and the most powerful of its times and we speak about a sophisticated culture and nothing like Gauls, Germanics, Picts that Romans had to deal about...

One factor, one of the major ones, is the psychological advantage Greeks had, since they were defending their homes and families, in contrast to Persians who fought in a distant unfamiliar place.
 
Joined Apr 2010
16,748 Posts | 16+
Slovakia
One factor, one of the major ones, is the psychological advantage Greeks had, since they were defending their homes and families, in contrast to Persians who fought in a distant unfamiliar place.
And unlike Persians, Greeks were free citizens. Like Swiss pikeman defeating heavy cavalry armies of France and Germany.

People often make mistake of placing too much influence in war on "hardware", while in reality it is "software" which mostly turn to be decisive in battles and wars. It was Greek superior morale which was most probably biggest reason of their triumph.
 
Joined Nov 2009
8,402 Posts | 59+
Canada
And unlike Persians, Greeks were free citizens. Like Swiss pikeman defeating heavy cavalry armies of France and Germany.

People often make mistake of placing too much influence in war on "hardware", while in reality it is "software" which mostly turn to be decisive in battles and wars. It was Greek superior morale which was most probably biggest reason of their triumph.

I doubt 'morale' is a huge factor in terms of 'free' and 'not free'. Morale is a factor, since to the greeks, everything was at stake (their culture, civilization, home, children,women, etc) while for the Persians, it was just another campaign against a tiny part of the world. Sort of the reason why the Taliban have far higher morale than the Americans in afghanistan.

But Free and not-free ? irrelevant. Being 'free' doesnt make you fight harder, neither does being indentured to your king make you fight any less fiercely. Those who are raised with the notion that they exist to serve the nobility don't lack any energy or vigour compared to those who are raised to serve themselves first.
 
Joined Jun 2009
6,987 Posts | 17+
Glorious England
plus that at least Minor Asia is also a mountainous area, like Greece, and it subdued relatively easily.

Any underestimation of Persians' capability in war is beyond reason. We speak about a vast empire, and the most powerful of its times and we speak about a sophisticated culture and nothing like Gauls, Germanics, Picts that Romans had to deal about...

One factor, one of the major ones, is the psychological advantage Greeks had, since they were defending their homes and families, in contrast to Persians who fought in a distant unfamiliar place.

This is a good point. People are often quick to undermine the strength of the Persian Empire, but until that point, it was the strongest power in the whole Mediterranean by a long way. It was the premier superpower, that's why the Greeks managing to fend them off is such a big deal.
 
Joined Sep 2010
10,783 Posts | 20+
Serbia
This is a good point. People are often quick to undermine the strength of the Persian Empire, but until that point, it was the strongest power in the whole Mediterranean by a long way. It was the premier superpower, that's why the Greeks managing to fend them off is such a big deal.
Indeed.
Alcibiades
 
Joined Jan 2011
21 Posts | 0+
sometimes it all boils down to luck and timing. individually, the various greek factions are quite fragmented. it typically takes a shocking event for them to put their differences aside and work together. unlike the persian army, this made the allied greek forces much more united. identification of the powers in enemy forces is also important. with that many conscripts and mercenaries in the persian army, sometimes all you need is to drop a ranking officer to cause an entire army to run. in turn this lowers the overall morale of the whole persian forces

if anyone noted, the allied strategy basically revolves around fighting in confined areas ie thermopylae. this negated the advantages the persian had in open ground fighting as well as the numerical advantage

another striking point is the threat to the persian rear. by destroying the persian fleet, the greek navy posed a threat to the persian frontline as they could trap the persian on europe and denying them the return to asia. in addition, this also meant that the nobles also have to worry about domestic issue such as a coup, uprising, etc
 
Joined Jan 2011
21 Posts | 0+
As far as being utterly exterminated to the last man suited them well, I guess ...

25000 greek vs 300000 persian forces, the withdraw of most forces, 1:10 kill ratio in favor to greece

looking at these numbers, yes

it maybe a tactical defeat for the spartans but a strategic win for greece as a whole
 
Top