The Greco-Assyrian Wars

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
8,945
here
#1
Maybe some of you are familiar with Dan Carlin and his podcast. He said something that I thought was interesting and I wanted to know what you Historumites thought about it.


He says that he doesn't think the Assyrians in their prime could have done any better than the Persians did against Alexander. He says Alexander and the Macedonian military would be superior to the Assyrian armies and forces.

However, he does think that the Assyrians in their prime, (circa 900-700BC?) could and would have been more successful than the Persians in dealing with Athenians, Spartans and other Greeks at places and battles like Marathon, Thermopylae, Plataea and elsewhere.

He said Western civilization is lucky that it was the Persians that the Spartans, Athenians and Allies faced at Thermopylae and Marathon rather than the Assyrians.

What do you guys think?

How did the Assyrian armies compare to the latter Persian armies?
 
Jul 2016
242
Just outside the Rust Belt
#2
Well the Persians levied armies from their vassals, the Assyrian government was the army. I don't know if they still had the size though to defeat the Greeks nor the armaments.
 
Jul 2015
8
Illinois
#3
The Assyrians would have been victorius over Alexander. But then again I'm biased. But why did he think Western Civilization is lucky? The Assyrians contributed to world civilization in general as much if not more than other ancient powers. Had Assyrians been there instead of Persians to meet Alexander, Western Civilization would still have flourished. The main difference would have been that Assyrians would have been given the credit they deserve by Western historians instead of being maligned as is often the case now and for no good reason. In full disclosure, I claim descendancy from the glorious ancient Assyrians ;)
 
Jun 2017
2,555
Connecticut
#4
Maybe some of you are familiar with Dan Carlin and his podcast. He said something that I thought was interesting and I wanted to know what you Historumites thought about it.


He says that he doesn't think the Assyrians in their prime could have done any better than the Persians did against Alexander. He says Alexander and the Macedonian military would be superior to the Assyrian armies and forces.

However, he does think that the Assyrians in their prime, (circa 900-700BC?) could and would have been more successful than the Persians in dealing with Athenians, Spartans and other Greeks at places and battles like Marathon, Thermopylae, Plataea and elsewhere.

He said Western civilization is lucky that it was the Persians that the Spartans, Athenians and Allies faced at Thermopylae and Marathon rather than the Assyrians.

What do you guys think?

How did the Assyrian armies compare to the latter Persian armies?
Think he's speaking because of brutality maybe? But the Persians might have been relying on vassals, they also could rely on far more troops because of this.

Main reason for Greeks survival is geography.