Joined Jan 2024
3,592 Posts | 5,495+
Spain
Why did no empire surpass the Achaemenid empire's size until the invention of high carbon steel?
- Thread starter Girgisjus
- Start date
Last edited:
We already addressed this in the thread I brought up. We have no idea what their respective numbers were in these battles. There were also cavalry on the Roman's side in Cicilian Gates. As I cited this many times throughout this forum, Tiridates also implies that Parthian archers are problems for Roman legions under Corbulo even if the later has greater number: "A thousand troopers, Tridates said, 'would be his escort; what force of every kind was to be with Corbulo, he did not prescribe, provided they came in peaceful fashion, without ......plates and helmets.' Any human being, to say nothing of an old and wary general, would have seen through the barbarian's cunning, which assigned a limited number on one side and offered a larger on the other, expressly with a treacherous intent; for, were they to be exposed to a cavalry trained in the use of arrows, with the person undefended, numbers would be unavailing."
Nothing of this sort existed in Greek vs. Achaemenid encounters. The Greek infantry with little cavalry support was able to give larger Persian forces trouble consistently even though they were defeated, they still performed far better than early Roman legions against Parthian cavalry; the Achaemenid cavalry seem to lack the shock power of the Macedonian and later Parthian cavalries and also lack the fire power of the Parthian and nomdic mounted archers, or use them in disciplined conjunction tactically.
How could we know that since there are no censuses from Iran before the 1870s and very few archives before the Mongol invasions? Welcome to Encyclopaedia Iranica If you read McEvedy and Jones and similar books they are honest about their lack of solid evidence and tendency to take one number and multiply it or divide it then extrapolate in between. And their book is 45 years old, and did not use the newest sources, and science marches on!
Qualitative sources might hint that the population increased from say 1650 to 1950 but they can't say whether the population 2000 years earlier was higher or lower than the level in 1650. Mongol invasions, environmental degradation, new diseases, and new crops and agricultural methods were all things!
Last edited:
We don't know the precision, and that's why its a very rough approximation through backward projection (the population was clearly growing in the 19th century). Unless you think Iran's population was much larger in 500 BC compared to 1900 that it even outweigh the growth in other areas, then the Achaemenid's upper demographic limit still should not be higher than it was in 1900, and most likely much lower. Yet, there are still some evidence that Egypt and India were the leading satraps in the Achaemenid Empire in revenue, and hence population. Herodotus listed India as providing the greatest revenue for the Persian Empire, and Persia only ruled the Punjab region, which was far less populated than Maghada and surrounding areas (much less the rest of India). Egypt was long known to have provided perhaps the greatest source of revenue among the Achaemenid satraps.
In response to the claim to its unprecedented power, I still emphasize the decentralization and relatively poor quality of its armies are serious problems for the Persian Empire. Given that the Achaemenid consistenly have important parts of its empire, or even the throne itself threatened by just around 40,000 Greek infantry dominated forces (Darius and Xerxes might be the only exception), I really wonder whether its some kind of unchallenged military power even at the height of its existence when we put it in global perspective. It might be dominant for the most part in Western Eurasia (albeit not always unchallenged), but East Asian and maybe even large South Asian polities (notably Maghada) that can garner up large forces might well be a rival or even greater military powers. In the Pingqiu Alliance in 529 BC for example, the Jin was able to deploy 4000 Cheng of chariot, or roughly 120,000 soldiers when we take the more conservative lost Sima Fa that gives 30 soldiers for one Cheng. In 506 BC, the Jin mobilized an even larger alliance that was unprecedented in scope. Even lesser states like the Yue could mobilize around 49,000 in the attack on Wu in 506 BC. Both Ralph Sawyer and Michael Aller have demonstrated that Warring States formations were far more flexible and sophisticated in formation than the phalanx, and if 40,000 Greeks can threaten Egypt, and 13,000 can march to Cunaxa in southern Mesopotamia from the Aegean Sea and back, and later Alexander's force (albeit with a strong cavalry) of 40,000 can take the western part of the Persian Empire, one wonders what a force of just 50,000 Warring States infantry could do, even when we take out the factors of generalship.
Joined Oct 2016
476 Posts | 170+
Nowhere
Do you think the age of Achaemenid was an age of multi-polar system? The world was much less connected and there were no single world superpowers at the time? China was still fragmented, Rome was still in its nascent state and Alexander's Empire had yet not come.
It was not like the following period where Rome and Han dominated their respective sphere of influence, with Sassanid in the Middle East, of course.
It was not like the following period where Rome and Han dominated their respective sphere of influence, with Sassanid in the Middle East, of course.
Last edited:
I think the Achaemenid for the most part was a unipolar power for its part of the world, maybe with very brief few years of some challenge from the Delian league. But if you put it in global perspective, you have to take account of the international system of the Eastern Zhou and Northern India. Nomadic powers are also starting to rise by the 4th century BC, albeit there still aren't anything like the Xiongnu power of the 3rd century BC. There are very little sources on India, China might be fragmented, but alliances are a real thing and they form poles in international relations. The Jin state dominated Zhou politics and was the hegemon through most of the 6th century BC, when we put together the states from a Jin dominated alliance, we are talking about armies of 100,000 or more on campaigns here, and they are probably qualitatively better than anything the Achaemenids faced (minus the nomadic cavalries). The Jin weakened significantly after 500 BC and slowly lost its hegemonic status, but should still be able to mobilize above 50,000 forces, and the Wei state that followed in the late 5th century BC could do the same. If Persia have trouble with Greek infantry forces that are just 40,000-50,000 in size, then I do not believe the Achaemenid military was unrivaled in the world stage even when we make just a statistical comparison while ignoring distance and power projection.
Joined Oct 2016
476 Posts | 170+
Nowhere
I think your assessment is fair and objective. There are not much I can add but expressing agreement.
Last edited:
Again, how could we know since there are no censuses, no detailed field surveys of most of the empire, and no documents from most of the empire? They published the first known rural settlement from Achaemenid Iran in the last decade! One of the most revealing things to do with McEvedy and Jones is to compare their charts for England (where they have some data from Domesday Book onward and the curves rise and fall) with countries where they just made up two or three numbers and fit an exponential-growth curve between them. And I don't think we have really good census data for Iran until well into the 20th century. IIRC there has never been a complete census of Afghanistan at all ...
There is some evidence for ancient populations from Egypt but keep in mind that half the country was Lower Egypt which is a sea of mud where everything rots or sinks. Not an easy place to check for potsherds and house foundations let alone tax receipts. And the really thorough documents are from Christian Roman times so about a thousand years after the Achaemenids.
How much revenue you could get from an ancient population depended on how they lived, where they lived, and how much of the economy was 'silverized.' Somewhere like Egypt that could export wheat, or Ionia where people used a lot of silver, offered a ruler more than the hills and jungles of large parts of India.
Last edited:
Did you really think I was being disrespectful? Because I can assure you, I was simply expressing my honest feelings.
Moreover, I am genuinely trying to understand why many members on this forum, on many occasions, tend to drift away from balanced and objective analysis of historical matters and veers into nationalist and biased narratives, where selective events and perspectives are used to distort and misrepresent historical events, and invalid historical comparisons are made. I find this both baffling and troubling, especially because you, as a moderator, must realize that the integrity of this forum is at stake.
While I fully understand how difficult it is to moderate a forum of this kind, I must say that I would rather be spoken to rudely than be subjected to what I perceive as nationalistic distortions and historical bias. The former is simply poor manners and etiquette; the latter is a deliberate twisting of truth and fair analysis—something I am certain this forum does not intend to support.
I fully acknowledge the historical distortions that occurred during the colonial period, which degraded and diminished the historical significance of the non-European world, including China and East Asia. But we must not replace one form of distortion with another. Nationalist mythologies and historical falsehoods only further obscure our understanding of the past. That surely should not be the standard this forum upholds, nor something it should permit its members to promote.
I simply wanted to get this off my chest. If I perceive similar distortions in the future, I will step away and let it be. But I certainly hope the moderators take steps to prevent this trend from continuing.
I have every right to voice my views here, and that right is not up for debate. If you disagree with the substance of my posts, you are, of course, free to respond, but not to silence. Rather than focusing on discrediting me, I would sincerely encourage you to take a step back and critically evaluate the content and tone of your own posts. In my view, that kind of reflection is not only appropriate but urgently needed.
Last edited:
According to this list of largest emires to date (each was the larges twhich had existed up to them):
List of largest empires - Wikipedia
The Achaemenid Empire Empire reached 3.6 million square kilometers or 4.49 million square miles in 539 BC and it reached 5.5 million square kilometers or 2.12 million square miles in 500 BC.
There were only four later record breaking empires in history.
The Xiongnu Empire reached 9.0 million square kilometers or 3.49 million square miles in 176 BC.
The Umayyad Caliphate reached 11.1 million square kilometers or 4.29 million square miles in AD 720
The Mongol Empire reached 13.5 million square kilometers or 5.21 million square miles in 1227 and 24.0 million square kilometers or 9.27 million square miles in 1309.
The British Empire reached24.5 million square kilometers or 9.46 million square miles in 1880 and 35.5 million square kilometers or 13.71 million square miles in 1309.
Of course there were other empires larger than the Achaemenid Empire after the Xiongnu Empire in 176 BC. But none those empires was larger than the Xiongnu Empire or a new record breaker until the Umaayyad Caliphate in AD 720.
Empires which later exceeded the maximum area of the Achaemenid Empire included the Xiongnu Empire around 176 BC, the Western Han Dynasty around 50 BC, the Eastern Han Dynasty around in AD 100, the First Turkic Khaganate around AD 557, the Rashudin Caliphate in AD 655, the Umayyad caliphate in 720 (the first to be larger than the Xiongnu Empire), the Abbasid Caliphate in 750 (the second to be larger than the Xiongnu Empire), The Mongol Empire in 1270 or 1309 (The third to be larger than the Xiongnu Empire), the Yuan Dynasty in 1310, part of the mongolt (the fourth to be larger than the Xiongnu Empire), and the Golden Horde Khanate in 1310 a part of the Mongol Empire. The other eight empires larger than the Achaemenid Empire were all later gunpowder era and/or colonial empires.
In post number 5 thread starterGirgisjus saud:
So that leaves only three empires larger than the maximum size of the Achaemendi Empire before AD 500. The Xiongnu Empire around 176 BC, the Western Han Dynasty around 50 BC, and the Eastern Han Dynasty around AD 100, But three exceptions are enough to prove that the initial post makes an inaccurate statement. Adnpossibly Girgisjus later changed the later cut off date.
I see that Girgisjus later changed the latest cut off date to:
The late 3rd century BC was the period from about 351 BC to 301 BC.
It should be obvious why there wasn't a larger Empire than the Achaemenid Empire in the Middle East during the peak of the Achaemenid Empire and the 301 BC. The Achemenid Empire was still ruling most of the Middle East during the beginning of that period, but not as large as it once was. Then most but not all of the Achaemenid Empire was taken over by Alexander III of Macedona. And later most but not all of Alexander's territory was taken over by the Seleucids. So the Middle East became more and more divided, but the largest remaining state was sill far too large for other middle eastern states to rivel the Achemenid Dynasty at iits peak. So that left India, China, and the Asian grasslands as places where large empires might possibly have arisen.
Last edited:
You are entirely welcome to provide the evidence to prove your point, and I will likewise challenge it with my evidence and analysis to prove mine. What is inacceptable is to resort to attacks when my evidence or analysis disagrees with yours, while you cannot respond to the evidence itself and start calling it distortion or bias while providing nothing to actually refute it.
Joined Dec 2015
9,459 Posts | 1,223+
As far as the mind can reach
High carbon steel probably existed during the early stage of iron age, ie 1200-500 BCE.
Joined Jan 2015
20,624 Posts | 13,435+
Azuchi Castle
Last edited:
I'm not understanding the question. Is it that the Achaemenid Persians built a massive empire because they had high carbon steel?
Because for the Persians their strongest weapon was the bow. In the early Achaemenid period when the empire was being created the arrow heads were largely made from bronze. This makes perfect sense because the Persians and Medes were not super organized states so as to mass produce iron. Likewise in China during the Warring States and early Han period they still used a lot of bronze. In all Achaemenid sites what you will find before any iron material is a bunch of bronze arrow heads.
Then there are a lot of bronze spearheads, as well as iron spearheads. The only thing that was mostly iron were the swords. When the Achaemenid Empire declined you will find a lot more burials with iron. So it kind of seems like their level of success didn't have that much to do with what metal they were using. Unless we somehow argued that Achaemenids using more iron led to their demise.
The Middle East in general was known for using bronze a much longer time after it had started falling out of fashion in Europe. But it isn't like bronze and copper universally disappeared, it was still being used globally, just that iron was given precedent in the forging of certain items by around the 500s BC. It is said that the Bronze Age ended around the 1100s BC but really bronze was quite dominant until around the 500s and 400s BC, in China it kind of seems like bronze was dominant until the 200s or 100s BC.
Though there is a problem that iron being kind of an "elite" metal they probably wouldn't have wanted to waste it by putting it in burials. Iron also tends to have an issue where it degrades a lot more than some of these other metals, so they will dig up iron items that are completely worn down. I can't remember what sites but in Europe they've found burials where the iron has completely vanished, and all that is left is basically the chalk outline, and high iron content in the dirt.
Anyway to put it into perspective the Achaemenids don't seem to have used iron weapons more than most of their neighbors. The Babylonians had a much larger system for producing iron weaponry. Although the Middle East in the Levant and Mesopotamia was poor in iron deposits. They could make do for producing weapons on a large scale, though they had less iron for domestic usage. In Anatolia this is another matter since they actually produced iron weaponry and commercial goods in large quantities. Yet that does not reflect the size of their regional empires in this period. The Egyptians were the exact opposite, having little access to iron and still largely relying on bronze.
The Scythians on the other hand used lots of iron but this does not correlate with any large empire. The Celts also used a lot of iron, maybe there is something there because their territorial expansion, picking off other tribes, peaked in the 400s or 300s BC when they straight up invaded Italy, Greece, and Anatolia. Still no developed society capable of making an actual empire. Maybe the one that does show a correlation with military strength is the Greeks, because around the 500s BC the Greeks started using iron to a large extent for their military equipment. This might equate to their military prowess but not really to any noteworthy expansion of territory.
Because for the Persians their strongest weapon was the bow. In the early Achaemenid period when the empire was being created the arrow heads were largely made from bronze. This makes perfect sense because the Persians and Medes were not super organized states so as to mass produce iron. Likewise in China during the Warring States and early Han period they still used a lot of bronze. In all Achaemenid sites what you will find before any iron material is a bunch of bronze arrow heads.
Then there are a lot of bronze spearheads, as well as iron spearheads. The only thing that was mostly iron were the swords. When the Achaemenid Empire declined you will find a lot more burials with iron. So it kind of seems like their level of success didn't have that much to do with what metal they were using. Unless we somehow argued that Achaemenids using more iron led to their demise.
The Middle East in general was known for using bronze a much longer time after it had started falling out of fashion in Europe. But it isn't like bronze and copper universally disappeared, it was still being used globally, just that iron was given precedent in the forging of certain items by around the 500s BC. It is said that the Bronze Age ended around the 1100s BC but really bronze was quite dominant until around the 500s and 400s BC, in China it kind of seems like bronze was dominant until the 200s or 100s BC.
Though there is a problem that iron being kind of an "elite" metal they probably wouldn't have wanted to waste it by putting it in burials. Iron also tends to have an issue where it degrades a lot more than some of these other metals, so they will dig up iron items that are completely worn down. I can't remember what sites but in Europe they've found burials where the iron has completely vanished, and all that is left is basically the chalk outline, and high iron content in the dirt.
Anyway to put it into perspective the Achaemenids don't seem to have used iron weapons more than most of their neighbors. The Babylonians had a much larger system for producing iron weaponry. Although the Middle East in the Levant and Mesopotamia was poor in iron deposits. They could make do for producing weapons on a large scale, though they had less iron for domestic usage. In Anatolia this is another matter since they actually produced iron weaponry and commercial goods in large quantities. Yet that does not reflect the size of their regional empires in this period. The Egyptians were the exact opposite, having little access to iron and still largely relying on bronze.
The Scythians on the other hand used lots of iron but this does not correlate with any large empire. The Celts also used a lot of iron, maybe there is something there because their territorial expansion, picking off other tribes, peaked in the 400s or 300s BC when they straight up invaded Italy, Greece, and Anatolia. Still no developed society capable of making an actual empire. Maybe the one that does show a correlation with military strength is the Greeks, because around the 500s BC the Greeks started using iron to a large extent for their military equipment. This might equate to their military prowess but not really to any noteworthy expansion of territory.
Joined Aug 2014
10,465 Posts | 4,802+
Australia
Last edited:
Iron does not make better weapons and armour than bronze. In many cases bronze is actually superior. Iron doesn't surpass bronze in terms of performance until the intricacies of quench-hardened steel were understood. Iron was important because it enabled metal arms to be accessible to a much greater percentage of the population, not because it was better.
In any case, even if one side had quench-hardened steel, it doesn't really matter. If you list all of the things that influence the outcome of a battle - numbers, terrain, weather, morale, training, experience, commander ability, intelligence, local knowledge, surprise, supplies, fatigue, and so on - and list them in order of importance, the types of weapons that each side used is right down near the bottom.
A quench-hardened steel blade has very little effect on the outcome of a war. These blades can hold an edge for longer and they are harder to damage but so what? A blade only has to last through one single encounter, after which it gets resharpened and repaired. From an individual perspective, hardened steel blades are great, they shift the odds of survival a few percentage points in your favour. But from an overall perspective, they aren't important at all.
In any case, even if one side had quench-hardened steel, it doesn't really matter. If you list all of the things that influence the outcome of a battle - numbers, terrain, weather, morale, training, experience, commander ability, intelligence, local knowledge, surprise, supplies, fatigue, and so on - and list them in order of importance, the types of weapons that each side used is right down near the bottom.
A quench-hardened steel blade has very little effect on the outcome of a war. These blades can hold an edge for longer and they are harder to damage but so what? A blade only has to last through one single encounter, after which it gets resharpened and repaired. From an individual perspective, hardened steel blades are great, they shift the odds of survival a few percentage points in your favour. But from an overall perspective, they aren't important at all.
Joined Dec 2015
9,459 Posts | 1,223+
As far as the mind can reach
The truth was that iron rendered metal weapons much more common.
Contemporary file steel is hard and rather brittle; as such, it is probably useless for weapons.
My bet is: Even cold weapons with contemporary steel isn't that much superior to medieval cold weapons.
Joined Jan 2015
4,856 Posts | 2,895+
MD, USA
Sure, it allowed the rise of armies rather than warbands, at a time when populations and production overall were rising. Iron *tools* were a large part of that, meaning that simple farmers were no longer stuck with scratching at the earth with wood or stone or antler, thus a substantial gain in agricultural output.
Well, yeah, there are obviously many possible results depending on alloy and heat treatment. Modern files are made to be very hard and stiff, so hardness is optimized over flexibility. But people do make very serviceable knives from files, starting with some simple heat. Ancient smiths knew very well what properties were needed for weapons, and even if their available technology wouldn't give them something extreme and super-powerful, they certainly knew what to *avoid*. They made swords, and they made files, and it was obvious to them that these were different items and made in different ways.
Not sure what you mean by "cold"? "Cold steel" in a tactical sense is basically a poetic description, for instance as opposed to "hot lead". Metal that is worked "cold" is a technical smithing or armoring term.
But in any case, I'm not certain you'd win your bet. We definitely have alloys that were not available in the middle ages, and we have far greater control over the metallurgy. So we can certainly beat their metallurgy. What we do *not* always have is a complete sense of the astounding craftsmanship and very subtle shaping that went into good swords and other weapons. For example, we're not only finding blades with distal taper (meaning thinner at the tip than at the hilt), but careful measurement shows that this wasn't always a straight taper but could be an extremely subtle parabolic curve. Very few people today could even begin to tell you how such features were achieved. Obviously there were a LOT of weapons that were very clearly cranked out in a hurry, though they were still highly refined and efficient and often had decoration even if the finish was crude by modern standards.
Matthew
Joined Dec 2015
9,459 Posts | 1,223+
As far as the mind can reach
By cold weapons (which is used in Chinese circle mostly), I mean "non-firearms" in general.
Close-quarters weapons (except for pistols) today are mostly knives (daggers), axes (in some cases) and batons; pistols generally eliminate the needs for polearms and swords.
@AlpinLuke enjoys medieval weapons nonetheless, and HEMA is a real sport.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-