Greece And Persia

[Aurelianus]

Oh, nice one, Andrew! Hadn't thought of that one before. Do you think there's a rule here, or is it just a remarkable coincidence?

I don't think that it was wholly coincidence, but nor do I think that there is a general rule that can be applied, suffice to say familiarity breeds contempt; the Romans viewed Germans as an unorganised rabble, whilst the Persians considered the Greeks to be an unimportant and insignificant terrorist state or states.

After that the parallels are less. Persia was blind to the rising power of Macedon, and was then conquered by an able and ambitious individual. The Germans were forced out of their homelands and forced to seek refuge within the Roman borders, they were then bled white with taxes, and so revolted. so the insignificant border states felled the mighty empire, but in different ways.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Aurelianus

[Rameses the Great]

If the Persians did not care a great deal, why so many attemps? As far as I know Greece was very civilized and had a rich heritage and strategic postions. If Persia ever wanted to conquer the 'civilized world' at the time, then Greece had to have been on the agenda for them.

[DecimusCaesar]

If the Persians did not care a great deal, why so many attemps? As far as I know Greece was very civilized and had a rich heritage and strategic postions. If Persia ever wanted to conquer the 'civilized world' at the time, then Greece had to have been on the agenda for them.

 

I'm not sure why the Persians attempted so many invasions of Greece. I think they might have done it originally as revenge for the burning of the Persian city of Sardis. They must have considered the Greeks to be too violent to be ignored. Later on after the failed invasions they decided to play the Greeks against each other (Persia supplied Sparta with a navy in the Peloponnesian war). This was obviously the best strategy as no doubt another invasion would have cost too many lives and resources. If they played them against each other then they could feel safer that the Greeks would be fighting amongst themselves instead of planning another attempt to liberate the Greek cities in Asia Minor.

[Julius Ratus]

Decimus Caesar - This panicked the Veterans of the Persian army who were just as well armed and trained as the Greek Hoplites.

 

They were not just as well armed. The Persians used little armour, and when they did have armour it was mostly quilted cloth or leather (an exception would be the Immportals who wore iron scale armour, but this was not as extensive as the panoply). Persian shields were made of wicker rather than bronze plated wood. Their spears were much shorter than those carried by the Greeks in the time of Marathon, Thermopylae, and Plataia.

 

The Persians had as much training as the majority of Greeks did, id est, very little to none. None of the Persians would have had the extensive training that the Spartans enjoyed.

 

Decimus Caesar - Still, this lack of good Persian infantry might have led to the Persian King of Kings recruting Greek mercenaries into his armies...

 

The Persians did recruit Greeks. The Thebans sent men to fight for the Persians at Plataia. In fact, the Thebans had supported the Persians from the begining, and those who fought with the Spartans at Thermopylae were little more than hostages. Indeed, they surrendered to the Persians at the first opportunity. (Herodotus, Book 8)

 

Decimus Caesar: I think they might have done it originally as revenge for the burning of the Persian city of Sardis.

 

Herodotus backs this up.

 

M. Porcius Cato: I assure you that the Greeks--especially the Athenians--cared about Asia Minor a great deal.

 

The Greeks and the Persians had two very different mindsets. To the Persians, contiguity was land based. Ionia was connected to Persia's territory by land and was seperated from Greece by a body of water, so they thought that Ionia was in Persia's sphere of influence. To the Greeks, the sea was what connected places together (hence their solidarity to oversea colonies, something that was lacking in the ancient Near East, e.g. Carthage and Tyre). The Athenians considered themselves to be linked to the Ionians by blood and so they were prepared to fight the Persians for the independence of the Ionic poleis.

[Pantagathus]

To the Greeks, the sea was what connected places together (hence their solidarity to oversea colonies, something that was lacking in the ancient Near East, e.g. Carthage and Tyre).

A tad bit off topic but I would not use Tyre and Carthage as an example for arguing the lack of solidarity with overseas colonies by Near Easterners... The lack of Carthaginian military action in the homeland should not be used in my opinion to make a judgement on Carthaginian solidarity with Phoenicia proper.

 

Carthage sent 10% of their yearly proceeds to The Temple of Melqart in Tyre (i.e. to the Kings) all the way down until the time of Alexander's gallivantings.

 

It can be easily fleshed out by understaning sailing routes and the sailing seasons that communication between Carthage & the Levant was nowhere what it would have been in the Aegean between mainland Greece & Ionia.

 

After the diaspora, Tyre was just a front to keep Eastern politics out of their western business ventures. That is why they weathered (quite well) so many sieges, invasions and tributary relationships...

[DecimusCaesar]

They were not just as well armed. The Persians used little armour, and when they did have armour it was mostly quilted cloth or leather (an exception would be the Immportals who wore iron scale armour, but this was not as extensive as the panoply). Persian shields were made of wicker rather than bronze plated wood. Their spears were much shorter than those carried by the Greeks in the time of Marathon, Thermopylae, and Plataia.

 

Sorry my mistake. Some Persian line troops were armed and armoured in a similar way to the hoplites in linothorax armour and large round shields, unfortunately this was closer to Alexander's time and not during the Persian Wars of a 150 years earlier. Only the cavalry of the Persian Wars era would have been so heavily armed and armoured (according to Nick Sekunda's The Persian Army 560 - 330 BC) so Julius Ratus is right about this one.