Sorry to be irritating, but is this intentional?

[Swadius 2.0]

^{This is in no way supposed to be taken seriously.}

If I read this thread correctly, it seems that the Persians had a very balanced army composition. Not only that, compared to their Greek counterparts, the average Persian received far more training and exercises than the average Furthermore, there seems to be a significant number of professional full time Persian soldiers who train professionally compared to Greek city states that drew up militia from citizens when it needed to and put them through a break-neck boot camp program before sending them off to fight. So taking all this in, there is a question that is bugging me by the evident military superiority of the Persians:

Why didn't they conquer Greece?

As has been said, the Persians had a standing army. From this I think they would have had military academies too to keep their military traditions, strategy, and tactics up to date. They actually had cavalry worth a damn compared to the Greeks, and probably used them properly too. In fact, given the cohesiveness of the Persian state, they could probably have drawn up more full time or at least notable strong men to field in their armies than the Greek states could field altogether, and this isn't including the levies that could be drawn up. So in the face of this, how could Persia fail at taking over Greece? Their martial ability must have been superior to the Greeks individually and cohesively as an army. Are the Persians just spectacularly incompetent? Given this view, I think they are. Sure you can argue that there are balancing issues in the game between Greek and Persian forces, but it seems to be the case that Persians, despite their multitudes of military superiority just can't bring it together to beat an army that was drawn from the streets of Greek cities.

The Persians are like the enemies that fight the Imperial guard in Warhammer 40k you know? Bio engineered, superhuman monsters, blessed by Eldritch Gods, in possession of several thousand years of battle field experience; biological monstrosities from beyond the stars, and technologically advanced metal space zombies, space elves, and space orks can't beat a bunch of normal ladies and gentlemen wearing compressed paper armor and wielding the galactic equivalent of a flashlight. To put it into better perspective, said monstrous forces had ten thousand years to put down these bunch of people. Like the Persians, this question applies to them equally in that they've failed to accomplish what should have been a trivial goal given a generous amount of time:

What's their excuse?

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

^{This is in no way supposed to be taken seriously.}

If I read this thread correctly, it seems that the Persians had a very balanced army composition. Not only that, compared to their Greek counterparts, the average Persian received far more training and exercises than the average Furthermore, there seems to be a significant number of professional full time Persian soldiers who train professionally compared to Greek city states that drew up militia from citizens when it needed to and put them through a break-neck boot camp program before sending them off to fight. So taking all this in, there is a question that is bugging me by the evident military superiority of the Persians:

Why didn't they conquer Greece?

As has been said, the Persians had a standing army. From this I think they would have had military academies too to keep their military traditions, strategy, and tactics up to date. They actually had cavalry worth a damn compared to the Greeks, and probably used them properly too. In fact, given the cohesiveness of the Persian state, they could probably have drawn up more full time or at least notable strong men to field in their armies than the Greek states could field altogether, and this isn't including the levies that could be drawn up. So in the face of this, how could Persia fail at taking over Greece? Their martial ability must have been superior to the Greeks individually and cohesively as an army. Are the Persians just spectacularly incompetent? Given this view, I think they are. Sure you can argue that there are balancing issues in the game between Greek and Persian forces, but it seems to be the case that Persians, despite their multitudes of military superiority just can't bring it together to beat an army that was drawn from the streets of Greek cities.

The Persians are like the enemies that fight the Imperial guard in Warhammer 40k you know? Bio engineered, superhuman monsters, blessed by Eldritch Gods, in possession of several thousand years of battle field experience; biological monstrosities from beyond the stars, and technologically advanced metal space zombies, space elves, and space orks can't beat a bunch of normal ladies and gentlemen wearing compressed paper armor and wielding the galactic equivalent of a flashlight. To put it into better perspective, said monstrous forces had ten thousand years to put down these bunch of people. Like the Persians, this question applies to them equally in that they've failed to accomplish what should have been a trivial goal given a generous amount of time:

What's their excuse?

Your sarcasm notwithstanding, their excuse for not conquering Greece lies in the rashness of the fleet to engage at Salamis, that cost them very dearly.

[crodio]

They lost at the seeeeaaaas
~~~~~~~~~~~\o/~~~~~~~~~~~
oh noes he's drowning D:

[SlaughterBill]

All the people who seem to be correct in this thread also appear to be the biggest assholes. One of the greatest shames of the internet I suppose.
The Persian or Achaemenid Empire spanned over 8 million squared km, and was the greatest empire of its time. They were one of the first empires who discovered the need of a well trained professional army (Greeks did not have one standing army).
They built a 2500km royal road that spanned their whole empire, and Cyrus the Great created an elite bodyguard known as the Immortals, numbering 10,000 strong. There was not slavery, it was expressly forbidden by their religion, Zoroastrianism. The Persians lost 20,000 men at Thermopylae and the Greeks lost between 1 and 4 thousand, but the Persians had hundreds of thousands of troops. Their sound defeat came only from a crushing attack by the Greek navy that caused Xerxes to retreat to Asia. All you other fools stop learning history from goddamn 300.

Keep in mind, all of this information is based on the words of some Greek historian, so take into account bias.

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

The Persians lost 20,000 men at Thermopylae

I call bullshit on that. Seriously dude, read the ******** thread.

In fact, pretty much everything you wrote is bullshit. The Persian army couldn't have numbered 300 thousand - such armies only became possible with the invention of railroad. Slavery was not forbidden at all - it was forbidden to have an ethnic Persian slave. Persians were a small elite in their giant empire, you know, and slave trade was very important to their economy.

Overall, you appear to be one of those guys who just swoop in, trying to appear smartasses, without even bothering to read the thread.

Yes, the phalanx was superior in a prolonged head-to-head engagement. So? The Persians did not rely on infantry to win battles, they employed the best cavalry force in the world. I never said they were bioengineered superhuman robots or something - but it appears that you all think the same of Greeks. Have any of you thought how stupid the assumption that 20 thousand Persians died in a 14 meter pass? That isn't even humanly possible. At Pydna, for example, the Romans were getting mauled by the Macedonian phalanx frontally, for quite a long time, and they were pushed back. But then the supposedly superior pike phalanx lost cohesion and was destroyed by the legionaries. Despite the fact that most of the day the phalanx had been getting the better of the hastati, guess who suffered more casualties in the end? Romans lost 70 men to Macedon's 8000.

The same can be said for Thermopylae - the sparabara were forced into frontal fighting, but in the end of the battle it was the Greeks who got surrounded and massacred. Just because they were the attackers doesn't mean they lost all sense of self preservation - considering wildly charging was not something Persian at all. Neither did they lose that massive shield, you know.

[SlaughterBill]

Mr. Roach,
I agree with most you say, so I'm not sure why you're 
1) When I say, 20000 Persians dies at Thermopylae, that is the only number known to history, and as I note, that's based off of Herodotus.
2) There is some evidence to suggest that the Persian's may have sold prisoners of war as slaves, but as I said earlier, slavery was a crime against Zoroastrianism, and expressly forbidden. Instead, the Persian empire was more like Medieval Europe, relying on local governments called satrapies to hold together the massive empire.
3) As for the army size, 300,000 is probably an over-estimate but most historians think the army numbered from 100,000-400,000. Obviously not all of these men were fighting, but part of the invading army. As for the railroad comment, thats just incorrect. Chandragupta Maurya had the largest army of the ancient world, numbering over 600,000. No railroads then.

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

Mr. Roach,
I agree with most you say, so I'm not sure why you're 
1) When I say, 20000 Persians dies at Thermopylae, that is the only number known to history, and as I note, that's based off of Herodotus.

Just because Herodotus says that doesn't make it true. Herodotus also says there were 5 million people in Xerxes' army. You should know better than using his numbers.

2) There is some evidence to suggest that the Persian's may have sold prisoners of war as slaves, but as I said earlier, slavery was a crime against Zoroastrianism, and expressly forbidden. Instead, the Persian empire was more like Medieval Europe, relying on local governments called satrapies to hold together the massive empire.

Dude, are you ******** stupid? It seems you think I am a level below your level of knowledge on the Achaemenids. Of course I know about satrapies, but calling them feudal local lordships is just retarded. Satrapies were provinces. Like Roman ones. That's where the whole system comes from. They were governed by Persians appointed by the king, and they weren't called up as individual kingdoms, they were under direct rule of the king. He could do with them as he pleased.

3) As for the army size, 300,000 is probably an over-estimate but most historians think the army numbered from 100,000-400,000.

So? It is not the historians' degrees that matter, it's the reasoning behind those figures. Have any of them bothered calculating how much food and water such a ridiculously large force would consume ever day? Remember, for each soldier there generally were 1 or more slaves in any ancient army.

Obviously not all of these men were fighting, but part of the invading army. As for the railroad comment, thats just incorrect. Chandragupta Maurya had the largest army of the ancient world, numbering over 600,000. No railroads then.

And where do those figures come from? That's right, someone made them up. What the **** are you doing in a debate if you have not learned the basics of critical thinking?

P.S. I am not talking about the total size of some military, I am talking about the size of what could be put together in a single force.

P.P.S. Don't use wikipedia as a source, kid.

[Viking_Dane]

ok i dont get this thread any more it was first roach asked a question about the persian now he just says every one is stupid or a troll when they say what they have learned about the persians

[SlaughterBill]

Why is your dragon wearing a santa hat if its not Christmas anymore...

[SlaughterBill]

i only just noticed that

[Lazyman]

@Roach; You do know that you can edit stats and whatnot very easily right?

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

ok i dont get this thread any more it was first roach asked a question about the persian now he just says every one is stupid or a troll when they say what they have learned about the persians

I did not ask a question about the Persians; I asked about the mod's portrayal of Persians. It's just weird that Greek recruits start at level 20, while Persian recruits start at level 4.*

*In cities.

@Bill Because that is my avatar, and it has been my avatar for a long time. It has had the hat for more than a year now.

[Calathar]

this whole persian bs is rather funny, but... Greeks weren't trained? Are u stupid m8? Actually all hoplites were proffesional mercenaries, fighting all around ancient world for money. Yup, militia wasn't trained, but the core of ancient greek armies were hoplites, and they were far more superior in training, tactics and equipment than Persians. ALso, why did Alexander beat the hell out of Persians so easily if they were so superior to Greeks/Macedonians?

[Viking_Dane]

this whole persian bs is rather funny, but... Greeks weren't trained? Are u stupid m8? Actually all hoplites were proffesional mercenaries, fighting all around ancient world for money. Yup, militia wasn't trained, but the core of ancient greek armies were hoplites, and they were far more superior in training, tactics and equipment than Persians. ALso, why did Alexander beat the hell out of Persians so easily if they were so superior to Greeks/Macedonians?

thats a good point

[inox_ionizer]

Except it's wrong. While I have doubts about the notion that hoplites normally had no training, the majority were certainly not proffesional mercenaries, but in fact more akin to militiamen.