I Suggest you to Study more Detail of Greece History!! Becouse its full off Brainwashed Story and Thoose Credit Go for Albanians Tribes (Antienc one i mean) . Dude Even the (So Called Anticity Books if their own, Like Herodotus Ptolemy Tukiditi etc etc Agree with One Term) Greeks are different From Other Tribes they Lived !! 😉 The True Descendants of Bryge, Labeates, Ilyrian, Pelasgians are Today (Albanian People) I have Fact's about this that Greece Country and other Country (Skllavs) Keep Hidden from the Truth. Thnx if you Pay some Serious Attention to my Comment. 😉
The joke only works if they stopped disliking each other while they were fighting a common enemy. It also only works if they actually did get together and decide to fight a common enemy (which they didn't, not really) It also only works if they have a common enemy. The Persians were there largely for the Athenians, and everyone else knew this. This is why half of Greece sided with the Persians, many of whom fought against the rest at Plataea and other battles.The southern Greeks, who were the anti-Persian group of states, were not united in a common goal. Many of them wanted to build a wall across the Pellopanese and wait the whole thing out (after Athens burned, and the Athenians retreated) The Athenians effectively exhorted them into the battle of Plataea. (not all together unlike the battle of Salamis, supposedly) All the while they still hated each other. Meanwhile everyone is waiting for the Spartans to stop waiting for the gods to give them a sign. GOOD JOKE.
The Americans: "Ok China is getting out of hand, human rights violations, HK protests, copyright law etc. Lets put our differences aside and curb their influence" 2 months later "so about that impeachment"
It was 1 million soldiers and 1 million civilians in that army, but most modern historians tend to underestimate ancient peoples and sources, even though Herodotus is proven right again and again.
@@real_orestis_georgiou Yeah. Herodetus also said that the Scythians fought one eyed crazy bogeymen. How exactly could the Persians get 100000 soldiers? Out of their a***es?
@@owaisqureshi4576 The Persians had a vast empire and the most populous regions of earth. They demanded soldiers from all the peoples in their empire and back then almost all men were warriors, not like now. The reason many modern historians disbelief is that they doubt they could sustain such great forces. But the Persians were very sophisticated, contrary to modern disbelief. Historians also believed that the canal on mount Athos was a myth, until it was proven with modern technology that it exists beneath the ground.
It is interesting to note, on the topic of killing the envoys, that Spartans felt that they had committed a most heinous act of blasphemy by killing the envoys: For them who prided themselves on their piousness, every envoy was under the personal protection of one of their gods, IIRC it might be Hermes but I am not certain, it did not matter from which country the envoy was or how insolent or outrageous his demands were, every envoy was protected by Hermes himself. Realizing what they had done, the Spartans sent two volunteers and tons of gifts to the court of the Persian king. Those two volunteers were supposed to die there as an atonement for the two envoys that had been murdered in Sparta. Yet the Persian king in his clemency forgave them and sent them home, loaded with gifts. It is remarkable that this account is not Persian propaganda but from the Spartans themselves.
Spartans, like Athenians, killed the envoys in the process of declaring an all out war to the very bitter end. But it seems that, as usual in Greek states back then, various other "voices of reason" prevailed and they changed their mind trying to appease the Persian king. Persians also grabbed the opportunity to show clemency and that their conquest would be a civilised one, not one of annihilation.
The thing that impresses me the most about the whole affair is how unlikely it was that the greeks won . It's one of those textbook examples of how overwhelming force does not always equate victory. The persian doctrine of ruthless punishment or forgiving diplomacy is also masterful. It makes sense that they lasted so long with such a strong system of governance and war doctrine. Their adaptation to the greek victory by subsequently undermining them diplomatically is also brilliant. This is why I love antiquity. It was so incredibly rich in fantastic characters and almost fictional stories! I wish I had a time machine to go back and see how it all actually happened
Well, if u live at that time, and these things happen in like 100 miles away from where u live, you'd probably hear it days or months after it happens.. Anyway, if your just a regular joe during that time, you'd probably hear it through 3rd hand accounts.. And its not probably presented in a manner like this.. and you wont have the internet to check what really happened or how it happened and all that.. Besides, being a peasant, u probably wont know how to read
@@death2denemy lol hence time machine. I'm perfectly happy being born in the information age. But i would love the ability to go back and get a first hand account of events. Wouldn't want to live back then. Antiquity has nothing on the internet, space travel, or wikipedia even.
@@edmundmanuel9304 Yeah. Along with your time machine you want to have a space ship with a giant zoom lens so you can sit back in a comfy chair with a beverage of your choice and some pop corn while watching the Ancients kill each other. That and tiny little spy bots you could teleport into the Royal Chambers and listen (well of course you'd have a universal translator (!!!)) to what they said. .
@@BobSmith-dk8nw i was thinking more wonder woman invisible jet. Space ship is a bit too far from the action. Plus im pretty sure the thing never runs out of gas and can hover XD
@@edmundmanuel9304 Eh .... don't forget I said "giant zoom lens" but ... sure ... hovering invisible jet works. Besides - Wonder Woman is an Amazon ... so ... she'd fit right in. Her and Xena. .
I’d like to mention the moral factor, the Greeks were fighting what they perceived as, a war of survival, so they were more motivated to win than a collection of troops gather across the Persian empire, who were sent to Greece to ensure the power of the king, seems like the Greeks had more to fight for
No, the wars started because The Empire(Which is what Achaemenid means)had banned slavery and the ionian greeks hated this since it meant that people had freedom.
Young Adventurer This is a factor that cannot be underestimated. You are fighting for your world and your family and way of life. I would not have any desire to fight an angry Greek with his back to a mountain regardless or his armor for this reason.
@@swagatochatterjee7104 correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that was due to Russia exploiting their massive land (and Napoleon's insufficient knowledge of it) to delay and starve the Napoleon army _until_ winter? If so, that's not really "random", isn't it?
@@swagatochatterjee7104 its not really random as winters in Russia were always very cold. If you're under big threath like France, wouldn't you use your extreme weather for defence and later on as offence?
funny thing is, when Alexander the Macedonian attacked Persia, the Greek supported the latter more than him! at first at least anyway ... and Alexander loved Cyrus the Great of Persia's leadership style ... he wanted to be like him ... he even had some support inside Persia because the Persian Achamenid regime was declining rapidly due to political corruption in the court ...
@dergerät most historical records show that the Achamenids were already a corrupt regime! it's how human nature and absolute power works, anywhere in any culture ... empires are not built to last really! they bring profits as long as they are in power and they still bring more profits to whomever built them when the latter destroys empires!
@pericles yes that's what he's called in history as some others are called, like Cyrus The Great of Persia and so on ... but i don't quite get why you said that? what did i mean where?
I mean to this day the greatest empires in europe fell cause of internal conflicts due to usurpers weakening region control andarmy forces, leaving the empires undefended against enemies all over (macedonian empire, roman empire examples)
Of course, there is not a simple quality/quantity answer. Did the Persians outnumber the Greeks? Yes, it's almost sure and most of military historians agree. Did the Greeks have a better armor? Yes, even if the Persian heavy cavalry was well armored, most of their infantry was light armored. But it does not mean that the Persian army was a low-quality army. It was incredibly successful in Asia and also out of his homeland, even if most of the people don't know. The point is that each army has a very different military system. The farmer-based phalanx of Greek warfare proved superior, at least (and just) at winning battles. The Persians had a very good army, well designed for mantaining his empire and for defeating other near-easter armies and kingdoms, but that system was not prepared for a struggle against a citizen phalanx. It is not a matter of quality, but of context.
@@Paws.of.Justice Yes, it's true. It was very common, specially after the Cunaxa campaing, which proved Greek hoplites as a reliable force and the Peloponnesian War, which left lost of Greek mercenaries out of a job. The Persians understood that the Greek phalanx was stronger in combat than their typical infantry, specially against other Greeks, an tried to use them massively against Alexander.
Heavy armor does not equal being better. Heavy and light armoured troops both had their own pros and cons, with both being usually used with different tactics.
Also, there's a common theme around warfare throughout human history: a large multinational army failing against an army defending what's perceived as their homeland and on their back. As the video, quite what skillfully demonstrates, what was as huge victory for Greece and a huge landmark on their history, was a somewhat minor setback on Persian history at that time.
The battle of Salamis was decided long before the first Greek oar struck water. How? Themistocles had been successful in keeping the Persian Navy awake all night waiting for the Greek navy to try and escape. He did this by using the persian's habit of relying on traitors to gain the upper hand. Themistocles sent a man he trusted to tell Xerxes that the Greeks were fractured and fearful, that the Greek Navy planned to slip out of port that night and escape. Xerxes kept his navy at their posts all night waiting for the Great Escape. Themistocles on the other hand told his sailors & marines to get a good nights sleep. So they awoke the next morning bright eyed & bushy tailed while the Persians were exhausted.
@@iceintheair There is no 'tradition' when written by historians of the time... and it was a Greek historian (Herodotus) because there could not be a Persian historian knowing of these matters so close to Greece.
@Art of Letting go Honestly can't tell if your joking or being serious. Your last sentence is so ridiculous I think your joking if not get medical and mental help.
24:12 "And it wouldn't be until Alexander the Great that hellenistic armies truly perfected the combined arms approach to warfare".... what you should say its "until Phillip of Macedon", he is the one that revolutionized the hellenistic armies..... Alexander inherited that army and went to conquer but his daddy built it first.
Good point, but it was indeed Alexander that brought it to perfection. Phillip was the one that started it but Alexander took that and with his skills and knowledge led his armies all the way to India. That is why he is known as the greatest military commander to date.
@@ProedrosMeOnoma In a way you are right but I wouldn’t give Alexander 100% of the credit in regards to how good his army was. And the reason I say this it’s because Alexander not only inherited a fully professional army but he also inherited Phillip’s Generals who were amazing at what they do. You had the likes of Seleucus, Antipater, Ptolemy (who later build an empire in Egypt), Eumenes (For me the best of Alexander’s Generals), Antigonus (Brilliant strategist, almost as good as Eumenes. So it’s not like Alexander did it all by himself, he had the best generals you could possibly imagine having at your side and then the professional army. It was a combination of things, I’ll give Alexander 75% of the credit for everything he conquered, the other 25% goes to his brilliant generals and the troops he inherited from his father. But that’s my opinion, I could be wrong.
@@fgrodriguezqac that's absolutely true but it's true for every army commander. Alexander, Xerxes, Napoleon, everyone had and still have their generals and depended on them for success. Maybe the most brilliant military mind, found the most brilliant generals in this case.
@@fgrodriguezqac Were do we see the evidence that Philip's or Alexander's generals were amazing? Philip had sent Parmenio in Asia with 10'000 men before his assassiation, whered he accomplished precisely nothing. Antipater, who was left by Alexander as the viceroy in Europe, could not bring down the Spartan revolut until Alexander sent him funds to ensure he had massive numerical superiority and was beaten again during the outbreak of the Lamian war and had to be saved by Craterus brining reinforcements from Asia. Craterus himself was beaten by Eumenes, a secretary. Antigonus the One-Eyed and his son Demtrius failed in their expedition against some Arab tribes in Yemen. Lysimachus was beaten by the Dacians. Seleucus had to concede lands to Chandragupta Maurya. These guys all made their names on the backs of either Philip or Alexander.
@@cesaru3619 As anyone who ever played the 90s game Pirates! will tell you, the city of Cartagena is a bitch to attack!! Even in the 16th century, there was a well equipped fort guarding the port and the only way to approach the port was to sail eastwards, against the prevailing westerly winds. That means that you're travelling at a snail's pace, tacking back and forth under the withering fire of the cannons from the forts, never finding a beam reach, always having to either close haul or close reach. Never finding a beam reach means you never get to respond to the fort with a broadside. Cartagena was built to be a deathtrap to aggressors.
The few major reasons Persia lost in the end were: 1) the Persian army was designed to fight in open field using its Calvary and the Greek army was built to fight on its homeland which was rocky and mountainous. 2) the Persian army drew upon many different nationalities so it had a communication problem while the Greeks all spoke a similar language. 3) maintaining and feeding an invading army over a long distance is still a logistical problem till this day . That is what hurt Persia
But the Persians lost at Issus and Gaugamela. Probably not at as rocky or mountainous as in Greece, nor far from Persian Homeland, yet far from Greece. The forces of Greece probably didn't all speak ONE language, but similar dialects, but i would concede this last point. Which again brings up the chaotic-chance-theory.
@@tommeinhold7190 those are a different time period and under different leadership. The Greeks win in Persia because they had arguably the greatest general leading them at that time in Alexander .
@@cant_handle_deeznuts Quite the opposite, and that type of thinking is why videos like this need to be made. The Athenian writers who we take most of our firsthand knowledge of the period from commonly complained about how most Greeks never trained for war. The Spartans only stood out because they did, and their phalanxes wouldn't drift as others were known to do. The Persians on the other hand maintained a standing army, and hired a lot of mercenaries that included Greeks as well as those like Phoenicians who fought "in the Greek style."
24:44 replace "untrained levies" with "Citizen Militia". The Greeks were not untrained, rather they worked as any conscript army: they lived regular lives, but were trained to fight in wars should they arise. They weren't professional soldiers, but they weren't untrained either.
Yeah this was definitely something that got messed up in the creation of the graphics. The script more accurately talks about levies with infrequent training as would be expected from militias.
The state does not publicly train for war.--Xenophon, Memorabilia 3.12.5 Although we're happy to go to war with just about everyone, we do not train ourselves for it.--Isokrates 8.44 No such group training or competition now exists in any city-state at all, except maybe in a very small way.--Plato Laws 831b
@@ParallelPain Which is likely the difference between agrarian familial groups and neighbors training together as a matter of custom and necessity rather than state organized annual training involving hundreds or thousands of people. Additionally summer warfare between Greek states was so common and losses generally so minimal that it virtually guaranteed that much of a Greek fighting formation would be comprised of veterans anyway; regular seasonal warfare is training of it's own. Xenophon as you clearly understand is likely making this statement with the Persians in mind for comparison. (who do maintain a version of a standing army within their greater decentralized levy system)
@@Dadecorban Xenophon was making the comparison to the Spartans, who did publicly train for war, not Persians. This kind of "summer neighborhood camp" is completely conjecture with no support in the written sources. In fact, the sources tell us that in general, Greeks prefer not to train at all and in fact resisted training. Herodotus tells of when an admiral tried to train the Ionians who revolted against Persia, Book 6.11-12: ---- For seven days they obeyed him and did his bidding; but on the next day, untried as they were in such labor and worn out by hard work and by the sun, the Ionians began to say each to other: “Against what god have we sinned that we have to fulfill this task? We have lost our minds and launched out into folly, committing ourselves into the hands of this Phocaean braggart, who brings but three ships; and having got us he afflicts us with afflictions incurable. Many of us have fallen sick already, and many are likely to suffer the same thing; instead of these ills, it would be better for us to suffer anything, and endure this coming slavery, whatever it will be, rather than be oppressed by that which is now upon us. Come, let us obey him no longer!” So they spoke, and from then on no man would obey. As if they were an army, they raised tents on the island where they stayed in the shade, and they were unwilling to embark upon their ships or to continue their exercises. --- After only a week of training, the Ionians say they'd rather lose to the Persians than train any longer. Thucydides has Pericles praise the Athenians and mock Spartan training in his funeral oration by saying the untrained Athenians are just as brave as the harshly trained Spartans, Book 2.39: ---- If we turn to our military policy, there also we differ from antagonists. We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens; while in education, where our rivals from their very cradles by a painful discipline seek after manliness, at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger. ---- Note Thucydides also described the Athenians botching a seemingly simple right wheel at Amphipolis (Book 5.10) compared to the Spartans at Mantinea whom is described as forming up for battle incredibly quickly and orderly (Book 5.66), and who advanced to the sound from flute-players to prevent breaking order that other armies do when engaging (Book 5.70). Xenophon also have Socrates complain to Pericles that the Athenians in general not only did not train, they mocked the few who did, Memorabilia, Book 3.5: ---- When will they adopt the Lacedaemonian system of training, seeing that they not only neglect to make themselves fit, but mock at those who take the trouble to do so? ---- Xenophon also have Socrates, like Herodotus about the Ionians, talk about how the Athenian army is insubordinate to the officers (contrasting them to the fleet) also Memorabilia, Book 3.5: ---- Ah yes, and strange indeed it is that such men submit themselves to their masters, and yet the infantry and cavalry, who are supposed to be the pick of the citizens for good character, are the most insubordinate. ---- Plato, likewise, talk about how Athenians mock people who did train. First Laws 830b to 830d, talking about how trainers not willing to make some very sensible training regimens ---- and if we chanced to be very short of training-mates, do you suppose that we should be deterred by fear of the laughter of fools from hanging up a lifeless dummy and practicing on it? Indeed, if ever we were in a desert, and without either live or lifeless training-mates, would we not have recourse to shadow-fighting of the most literal kind, against ourselves? Or what else should one call the practice of pugilistic posturing? And so is their lawgiver, through fear lest these training-bouts may appear ridiculous to some, to refrain from laying down laws whereby he will ordain field-operations ---- Plato then goes on to describe his ideal training regimens, then state in no uncertain terms such regimen does not currently exist in any state, except to a very small extent (Laws 831b). Plato, having first put the advantages of training to fight in arms and armour into the mouth of Nicias, also put into the mouth of Laches, that Athenians thought there's no need, *as the Spartans do not* (Laches 182e-183a): ---- I speak of it in this way from the following point of view: I conceive that if there were anything in it, it would not have been overlooked by the Lacedaemonians, whose only concern in life is to seek out and practise whatever study or pursuit will give them an advantage over others in war. ---- Laches also saying none of these trainers have distinguished themselves in war, and have not become famous for their training (Laches 183c): ---- Indeed, we can estimate it offhand: for, as though it were of set purpose, not one of these experts in arms has ever yet distinguished himself in war. And yet in all the other arts, the men who have made a name are to be found among those who have specially pursued one or other of them; while these persons, apparently, stand out from the rest in this particularly hapless fate of their profession. ---- And, after telling the story of Stesilaus who was so mocked, that the Athenians mock those who did (Laches 184a-184c): ---- For indeed I hold that if a man who was a coward believed that he possessed it, his only gain would be in rashness, which would make his true nature the more conspicuous; while if he were brave, people would be on the look-out for even the slightest mistake on his part, and he would incur much grievous slander; for the pretension to such skill arouses jealousy, so that unless a man be prodigiously superior to the rest in valor he cannot by any means escape being made a laughing-stock through professing to be so skilled. ---- While it might seem strange to us, evidence point to that the Greeks believe that fighting as heavy infantry to be a matter of courage, instead of skill. Going back to what Pericles (Thucydides) said, this seem to be shared even by the people who was pushing for training. Xenophon in Cyropaedia has his hero Cyrus the Great rearm his peltasts and bowmen as heavy infantry (armour, shield, and scimitar or sabre in particular). The Persian commoners rejoiced at this. In Cyropaedia Book 2.3, Xenophon has of a certain Pheraulas describe how fighting in close quarters are actually instinctual, like from animals, even with swords. Pheraulas continues: ---- For this was not only instinctive, like walking and running, but I thought it was fun in addition to its being natural. Be that as it may,” he went on, “since this method of fighting awaits us, which demands courage more than skill, why should we not gladly compete with the peers here?” ---- This is also in line with Plutarch's likely apocryphal story in Moralia 233 that says the Spartans "appointed no trainers to instruct in wrestling so that the rivalry might be not in skill, but in courage". And it is in line with what Aristotle wrote in Politics 1338b of both Athenians and Spartans, by which time the Athenians had state-paid training as well: ---- Now at the present time some of the states reputed to pay the greatest attention to children produce in them an athletic habit to the detriment of their bodily form and growth, while the Spartans although they have avoided this error yet make their boys animal in nature by their laborious exercises, in the belief that this is most contributory to manly courage. ---- So the evidence here is that there were in fact private, ad-hoc training. But this training is not some type of neighbourhood farmer association, but of the rich and leisurely who had time and money to hire trainers. And indeed, even among the rich and leisurely, training seem to be rare. Memoralia 3.12, quoted before, is Xenophon writing of Socrates telling one of his students/companions that though the state do not train, he was out of shape and should train. Likewise Plato in Republic, Book 4.422 compares the wealthy to fat rich men, or men who have more skill and practice in boxing than war (note this also implies Plato thinks the usual training of the day don't help in war, and the rich didn't train much in war either). Even among learned experts, the common believe was that phalanx fighting rested not in skill, but in courage. Experts believed training made people more courageous, while common people prided themselves on their natural courage and mocked the skills of those among them who trained. Other reason for this lack of training was stated by Xenophon in Poroi. In chapter 1, Xenophon says that the Athenian leaders said that “owing to the poverty of the masses, we are forced to be somewhat unjust in our treatment of the cities.” In chapter 2, Xenophon suggest that they should relieve non-citizens of the obligation to serve in the infantry, as "it is no small thing to leave their trades and their private affairs", a burden that in all likelihood is shared by the citizens. In chapter 4, after outlining changes to slave labour and silver mining "in order that every Athenian may receive sufficient maintenance at the public expense" Xenophon states that, those who trained for torch races, who did garrison duty, who served as peltasts, and who patrolled the land did so voluntarily, and so did not take things seriously. The implication here is also only those rich enough to volunteer their time did these things, contrasting with Aristotle’s times when the state paid for the training.
@@ParallelPain None of the quotes you mentioned directly contradicts the theme of militia training; For the Ionians and the battle of Lade, the mention is for the crews and indeed the majority of rowers were untrained .Which navy ever had trained rowers? except maybe Athens? For Xenophon quotes ; He was a reknown friend of Sparta and everything you quoted is a comparison of his between Athens and Sparta. So we must see his views under that prism. For the nature of the brutal hoiplite warfare the qiotes were right ,it was a matter of courage rather than skill. For you could not block or parry the blows just accept that you would get hit unless your side would crush the opposoing side quickly. More spesifically : 1 & 2 refer to the rowers of battle of Lade. Irrelevant to the subject at hand , IMHO which is the notion that citizen phlanxes at the time were experienced. 3 talks about generally way of life and not spesifically battle and war. 4 For any luck of performance of Athenian infantry we have the opposite performance at marathon , at the battles before the persian invasion against the Thebans ,the supreme performance at the second battle at thermopylae agaisnt the gauls and so on. 5& 6 It is implied that the general population did not trained -as we say- but few did. Thats is a generalization. Today USA does not have training for all male population. So according to your logic ,US Marines are untrained? 7&8 Insubordination to high command as we define it today was a key thing of greek culture regardless of training or not. It is a culture thing and what define western way of war versus the autocratic military systems of the East. The general did not have a tabula rasa for the lifes of his men. But he was obliged to explain to them his actions. Failing to fullfill their expectations had dire consequences. Macedon's army was almost a separate political body that gave authority to the king. Spartan Amomfaretus denied Pausanias before battle of Platea. The spartan Omoioi will force Kleomvrotos to attack the Thebans at Leuctra. Saying that greeks of the time did not blindly followed orders = untrained is a gross misconception and shows lack of knowledge of greek way of governing themselves. Rest of your quotes are generic. It compare system of governance between sparta and Athens. While Sparta had entire male population under arms for decades while Athens did not . Athens is like USA of today. Had a proffesional core of soldiers which would be supplamanted in time of dire crisis with militia. Athens was at war from early 500 bs untill /and gallic invasion. Every 10 years was a war. taking into consideration the manpower of the city and the noumerous corps it put onto the field basically at times entire athenian population were at arms. Athenians had a standing army of the Logades , political remnant of archaic/mycenean times. these were the rich the nobility. Except these they at least had a permanent auxilia cavalry horse archer formation comprised by scythinas and rich athenians. They had auxilia police made by thracians and they also had permanent crews that maintained the triremes. After a point they had an obligatory two year service. Aristoi of Thebes also were a permanent body ,which pelopidas later will make into as Sacrd band. But they existed before hand they did not figh as one unit rather than dispersed. Macedon had the Companions which were permanet aswell. Thessaly aswell had permanet corps. except if we think that raw recruit cavalrymen can use diamond formation with brutal effectiveness. Or recruit cavalry charging head on and winning a spartan phalanx (during athenian coup) Arcadians had "Eparitoi" numered at 5k. Achaian federation had standing army aswell. The battles of ancient greeks tell us if they had training or not; At Crimisos river Timoleon could only rely on his " volunteered elite" corinthian infantry. The term directly to me equals the permanent nobility of corinth ,probably some type of Epilektoi. They faced at extreme numerical disadvantage the whole carthaginian army and its famous fully proffesional sacred band. Fighting below waist inside the river under heavy storm and rain in phalanx formation against the carthaginian phalanx. Which was so afraid of their "pushing" that according to ancient sources they had chained themselves one to another. The result was the complete anihillation of the carthaginian sacred band. No raw recruits could do that excpet a veteran elite corps. Also note that the greeks failed to break the sacred band with spears and resorted to swordfighting.... In the gallic invasion of 279bc the athenians send their Epilektoi at thermopylae and they faced the elite gaulish warriors that were in arms in lower balcans for decades. The gauls failed again and again to break the phlanx and bypassed the narrow point instead of winning against the massed greek infantry. I can bring examples of military feats of recorded ancient greek formations that are impossible to be done except they were comprised by elite troops. The mercenaries of darius at Issus ?That penetrated the best pike phalanx ever? The aitolian cavalry that bested the macedon companions at first roman macedonian war? The spartan phalanx at coroneia that opened their ranks to avoid the onslaught of the theban juggernaught? The constanty recorded testimonies of greek formations chaging facing sides in battle? Cunaxa? Thates river? coroneia? How a raw recruit corps at marathon was able to give ground while its flanks destroy the elite permanent persian infantry and then stop giving chase , but reunite in one body and fell into its ranks ? There is scarcelly any other reecord in history concerning infantry formation achieving that. The armour of the elites ,mainly the muscular broze cuirass ,the closed helmets ,the greaves ,the bronze renneforced shield the sword and the heavy spear are impossible to be worn , carried over for hours , and then used under greek sun and summer temps for any human indivindual unless that indivindual had bigger muscles and body structure. Any college student that tried to wore the full panoply for more than 15 mins was exhausted. The greeks were doing that for hours under 40-45 degrees celsius inside the dust and in intense psychological stress. yet all these men were untrained militias. Side note and I close , many of the misconceptions about modern interprentations of phalanx warfare are originated from the inability of the renactors/students etc to wear the full panoply. "Ok we cannot breath here inside the panoply for long ,so the greeks did not fough for hours but rather charged and hit with spears at full spear range. None ancient author mentions it , but hey it is impossible for me to stay consius so this must have been happened" "These spear tips are coming directly at me and i cannot doidge or block. this is wrong ,obvioulsy something else happened." " Othismos? Pushing against the enemy formation? Are you crazy ? the spear point are at my face!! It did not happened" "These panoply is very heavy. Impossible for me to wear it ,so lets make a modern version of it with 1/5 of its thickness and then complain that greek armor is not protective" And so on....
My landlord is a Greek man I am Tajik from my fathers side and Persian/Kashmiri from my mothers side. We often chat about the history of our people. He is a great man I love my landlord he always been fair and comes frm a good family
Fun fact: After the destruction of the Persian army in the battle of Plateau, the Greek general Pausanias ordered the staff of Mardonius to prepare a feast like the ones the Persian General used to have. He also prepared the infamous spartan meal (melanas zomos which translates in black soup, a very nutritious meal but with extremely bad taste). Then he invited all the Greek leaders to Mardonius tent and he presented both meals. He stated : Don't you think my friends that Mardonius is so stupid that he came from the edge of the world here to conquer our melanas zomos while in his country he was eating in golden dishes?
For Mobile users: 2:03 - Why were the Persians and Greeks fighting? 4:05 - How did the Greco-Persian Wars start? 6:52 - What was the Persian objective in Greece? 9:38 - To what extent were the Persians successful? 20:57 - Were the greek forces really superior?
Which would be interesting to understand since the Greeks were moving on the Persians... why would the Persians not have chosen the most militarily useful positioning?
@@ghandimauler They chose the most advantageous position for them, the level ground where their cavalry could operate. Then, seeing the greeks disorganized they attacked on the hills losing their advantage
Greeks: "It's over Mardonius, we have the high ground!" Persians: "You underestimate our power!" Greeks: "Don't try it." Persians: * leaps and get their Mardonius chopped off *
I am thinking of making a video about this. Some Persian cavalry attacked a retreating Spartan unit at the break of dawn. The Spartan unit turned around to fight, giving time for other Spartan units to come to the rescue. Then Mardonius ordered his left wing forward to help extricate his cavalry that had been partly caught in melee in unfavourable circumstances. Additionally, Mardonius perhaps perceived the Spartans as somewhat disorganised but by then most Greeks were at the foothills and had the high ground. To what extent, great or small, the high ground helped, none of us was there to know, but part of the victory was probably down to the fact that a substantial part of the "Persian" side never committed to battle. Most of the Greek allies of the Persians never went into battle and probably that was the reason why the "Persian" right wing did not get involved at all. Herodotus says that the Macedonian king had come to the Greek camp at night to provide information about the Persian plans and, if that is true, it is unlikely that the Macedonians would have been willing to fight for the Persians and the same probably goes for most other Greek allies of the Persians. Under the circumstances, Mardonius had to win over the Spartans to galvanise the rest of his army to fight for the Persian cause and his dying was a deadly blow to the the Persian chances of a victory.
The sheer amount of effort to pull out a supply line strong enough to feed tens of thousands soldiers with the technological level of that time could also be a reason of some of Persian's misfortune. Not to say the whole operation was bound to fail, but the feat of strength the Persians had to do on a daily basis in order to be combat worthy is impressive to say the least
I think that one of the major deciding factors was the rough greek terrain. In order to maintain a large supply chain to feed an army fighting across a sea is much more complicated than on land, implicating hundreds of merchant ships, friendly ports and a lack of proper infrastructure. As a comparison, the roman campaign to pacify the germans was a terrible and bloody one that lasted several decades, and they had a strong land supply line through Gaul (France). Even so the romans only achieved a partial victory, never being able to conquer Germania, but instead opting to pacify it through diplomacy. The persians had to rely on the same tactic as they quickly realised that a protracted war across the seas was far more costly than the greek territories were worth. Opting for diplomatic solutions was the best outcome for them to quell an otherwise minor thorn in the side of a massive elephant which was the Persian empire. In other words, GG Persia, well played.
🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺👋🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👋 We were lucky Or it was staged by xerxes himself ...like staged football or boxing games. As Putin today...1 year pretenting that conquering Ukraine 🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👋
@@mancamiatipoola just saying. The Persians had control of Greece for over a year and couldn’t finish them off even though they heavily out numbered the Greeks that’s opposed them. Plenty of Greeks backed the Persians.
I rather like this notion! ...To think that, way back when, in an instance of dodging blame, it was common to say, "Well, HE certainly got thrown under the rolling oxcart/charging chariot!" ...or some equivalent thereof. 🤓 😁
You know, now that I reflect a bit more, it's just possible that this sort of comment might have had its equivalent as far back as the Stone Age. One easily pictures some Neolithic tribesman uttering to another: "Well, you sure threw HIM under the mammoth stampede!" 😄
Hardcore History opened my eyes to the fact that in the scale of the Persian Empire's rule and timespan, the Greco-Persian Wars were a relatively minor thing. It was a punishment campaign that was most of the time on the back-burner, and Darius was so prone to forget about it completely that he had someone to continuously remind him "Lord, don't forget about the Athenians". Most of what we know about Persian military action is from the West, when they had a huge border far into Asia in the East, and likely spent a ton of time and effort campaigning there and elsewhere about the empire. They dealt with the Greeks much more by diplomacy than combat, and typically more Greek city-states were on their side than against them. Imagine if all we knew about the Romans was from the perspective of the ancient Britons when the Romans invaded Britannia. That's kinda what it's like to hear about the Persians only from the Greeks. There is *so* much to the story of their empire we'll likely never know about.
Your right except for the part about the empire history they are a lot of source and material found in Iran but unfortunelty lot were lost over time by different invasion so it's a bit less precise than greeks history but still really detailled actually
As an Iranian I appreciate (& am shocked a bit) to see that open minded people who are not blinded by western propaganda still exist in the west ! Although the lies about Greco-Persian wars are virtually nothing in comparison to how deep some other western propagandas go in everything ! And honestly 90 if not 99 percent of the Iranians don't even know where is Greece ! We call it *Yunan* which is derived from *Ionia* !!! Even in the ancient times Iranians referred to all the Greeks as Ionians who were the Greeks of Anatolia & lydia ! ( simply because Iranians were always a United nation & people & from their/our point of view everyone else was like that too ! Ancient Iranians didn't really consider themselves to differentiate between Spartans, Athenians, ionians & so on ! *so when the ionians unprovokedly revolted & were supported by other Greeks in Athens, Iranians took it as a sign that all of the Greeks, city states or not revolted & killed innocents at Sardis and burned temples* !!! So it's only understandable that they wanted to punish this behavior & when they punished the ionians, they continued to punish the Athenians as well ! ( *From their perspective they were revenging their loved ones who were killed in the revolt & punishing everyone responsible* ) You might not believe me but we don't even know that Sparta was a city in Greece ! *if not for the popular God of wars game we would've never heard of the word Spartan even* LMAO !!! I understand that for Greece it's such a pivotal moment of history when they could have a minor victory against the superpower of the world but for us , the number of our superpowers & their struggles & main enemies are sooo much that we honestly don't know or hear from these events at all !!! Our ancient history/pre-Islamic history is like : *Proto-Elamite & Elamite civilization 5000 years ago* ! *The Median-Iranians forming an alliance between their tribes & forming the Median empire against the Assyrian empire 3000 years ago & eventually defeating the Assyrian empire with the help of the Babylonian empire* ! *Cyrus the great being born in the province of Pars/Persia 2600 years ago & conquering the known world & all of its empires including the Median empire, the Lydian empire, the Babylonian empire, the indus valley, the caucuses & north west of India & then dying of old age in bed at the age of 71 years old* ! *Darius the great conquering even more lands like Egypt, more parts of the north west of India, the Scythian lands & the Balkans , south Russia & Ukraine* ! & then we memorize some names of the Achaemenid king of kings ( not what they did or anything else about them ) & then *Iskandar-e-Maqdoni* (Alexander the Macedonian) trying to conquer the Achaemenid empire & succeeding at overthrowing it 2300 years ago but then dying very young before he could rule anything ! ( I don't know where do people get this impression from that Alexander is called *Alexander the accursed* in Iran ??? Literally everyone either don't know him or if they do, call him *Alexander the Macedonian* ) Although I should mention that he's considered to be more like a barbarian general specially because of burning persepolis & its great libraries ! But no one calls him *accursed* ! I don't know where people got that from ?! & that's all that we hear about the Achaemenid empire !!! *& since 99% of the Iranians think that Macedonia is different from Yunan/Greece , no one really knows that at some point Greece was our enemy* !!?? The word Yunan literally brings up 4 names in our minds: *Parmides, Arastoo/Aristotle, Aflatoon/Plato & Phisaghores/Pythagoras* !!!! That's it ! That's literally all that we know of Greece !!! (Also the news about Greece getting worse & worse in economy by the day) Then there are way much more content & accounts (things to be studied) about the Ashkanian/Parthian empire & the Sassanian empire as the other superpowers of the world that were arch rivals with Rome ! ( *The Parthian dynasty & the Sassanian dynasty together ruled Iran for about 1000 years, from 2250 years ago to 1300 years ago, as the world's superpower & were almost all the time equally matched by the other superpower of the world, Rome ! Untill the Islamic conquests in the 7th century A.D* ) so there's way much more content in those eras that we study !
@@mitalicsProductions why the butthurt ?? "I'm proud that 99% of my people don't know where Greece is" ??? *Why would that be of any importance to me whatsoever* ??? Honestly I couldn't care a rat's @$$ about that ! I just stated what's the truth ! *& honestly it was a very neutral statement that didn't carry any insulting meaning nor any praising meaning in it , just completely neutral* !!! You think if I wanted to insult you or downgrade you, I'd say it like that ??? Lol. *There's either something wrong with your eyes or with your cognitive capabilities if you thought that was an insult* !!! Or perhaps you just don't understand English well. Regardless, that was just a very tiny & irrelevant part of my comment !!! My whole point was that: *I'm happy & a bit shocked that open minded people still exist in the west even after all the B.S they're feeding you with propagandas* & I also explained our point of view on the matter & also pointed out why we have innumerable other significant parts & informations to care about & focus on ! & no !!! my ancestors recorded they history pretty Well enough ! But we've fought off almost every single major character in history ! From the Assyrians 5000 years ago to Alexander the Macedonian, Rome for 1000 years, the Muslim Rashidun caliphate & Saladin, Genghiz Khan, Tamerlan, the ottomans for half a millennium, the British, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Russian empires & the USSR, WW1, WW2 & even now we're giving a middle finger to the U.K & the U.S for wanting our resources for free & sanctioning us to death !!! *ofc that many of our records were burned & destroyed !!! But it's irrelevant cuz what's important is our land & our identity & civilization & culture which is what we'll continue to fight on for against every single superpower that comes & goes* !!!
Hollywood's creation .now I know.this. in Spain Spanish, Greece Greek, Thailand Thai, Russia Russian, American English, so on so fourth. Captions for those that choose captions. Much better than the voice language of a 1970,s Bruce Lee film
Persians > Greeks. All day. Iran is more historically important than Greece. Anybody that has actually achieved higher education knows this. Nietzche and Hegel were way ahead of the curve when they said this.
@Ezio Auditore For sure they are/were. Greeks were slaves to their gods, Persians invented monotheism and the concept of personal agency in decision making. Better science, arts, literature and technology. Greeks lasted such a short time. Persian civilization was reborn several times and still exists. Alexander didn't beat the Persians, they rose again through Parthia and the Sassanid Empire.
It's very unlikely. Chaos may have helped the Greeks once or twice, but you don't accidentally beat the most powerful military of the time through mostly luck, and this video really doesn't provide a very convincing argument for this. At the end it literally says it doesn't have the answers then says "oh well, must have been chaos", so even the video doesn't agree with itself on this, lol.
🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺👋🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👋 We were lucky Or it was staged by xerxes himself ...like staged football or boxing games. As Putin today...1 year pretenting that conquering Ukraine 🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👋
Just as another example of failure by luck. The battle of Wu Zhang Plains in Three Kingdoms conflict ended when Zhuge Liang (the commanding official in charge of Shu) fell ill and died despite having the advantage. The lack of trust in his subordinates didn't help Shu Han in sustaining success after his downfall either.
@@adamjenson9369 No, the video quite clearly gives several relevant factors, but adds that there's also a fate/luck/chaos/The Gods factor at work, in things like the storms and timing and such. And it's not the only time this played a role... see the Mongol fleets wrecked while trying to invade Japan, or the freak winter cold in 1941 in Moscow that stalled the German offensive.
I am surprised that one factor left out for Persia's failure was command and control difficulties with a vast army of different ethnicity, religions and languages. Even the best general would have a hard time with that.
True, but the Greeks of the time spoke wildly different dialects as well. Later in the Peloponnesian wars, Athenians accidentally attacked their allies once during the siege of Syracuse because of their dialect.
I imagine that on the whole, differences between Greek dialects was a small problem compared with Persian difficulties in holding together and commanding vassals that spoke different languages, had different customs and religions, some of whom were unwilling vassals. Herodotus claims that on the night before the crucial day in the battle of Plataea, the Macedonian king who was nominally a Persian vassal, came to the Greek camp to provide information to the Greeks about the plans of Mardonius. I also feel that control over such a multi-ethnic army was a factor and that the Persians could coerce their unwilling vassals to fight for them only as long as the Persians were winning decisively.
Correction: At 24:44 the graphics state the Greeks were "Untrained levies". This is incorrect. It should instead say "non-professional" or "militia" to be more aligned with the script which states the Greeks were "levies who mustered in times of war without regular training". This is in the context of an argument for a smaller quality gap between the armies than is typically depicted as opposed to an argument for a non-existent gap which we did not intend to make.
Tbh I still think that is unfair, you have to consider the popularity of sports with the Greeks, like wrestling and pankration, it creates a naturally more athletic pool of recruits. There is also the Pyrrhike, which is taught in schools and practices for festivals, I'd say the Greeks were more akin to national guard than untrained militia, maybe not quite as much training but you get the gist
I think the most obvious reason for the Persian failure was the difficulty of projecting power at such long ranges. Whereas the Greeks could quickly replenish man and equipment losses, the Persians had at least a 1-month lag time just to get troops and equipment to the front lines. At this point, you have to project what you think you will need, and any error can be very costly. If you call for more men, expecting losses, and you don't lose as many troops, you may not be able to feed the excess. If you have a significant setback, the enemy now has a month to run wild. You can't fight a war like that. The same scenario later occurred in the American war for independence, and with both Napoleon and Germany's invasion of Russia. Once your response time starts being measured in weeks and months, it becomes an impossible war to win unless you have truly overwhelming strength. The Persian invasion force was strong, but not overwhelming. They could not simply bury them in bodies.
As mentioned by Daniel Abbott’s reply athletic activities and training was occurring on a daily basis along with other activities so yes "Untrained levies" would not be the correct term. I would also want to add the different mentality between the Greek and Persian world. To explore this better you can try deep diving on the battle of Cunaxa (401 BC) and the adventures of the Greek mercenaries employed by Cyrus the Younger in order to dethrone his brother Artaxerxes II (Described in detail in the book Anabasis) . During the battle Cyrus died and his troops scattered leaving only the Greek mercenaries on the field which after pushing back the enemies left flank the turned back and scattered the victorious Artaxerxes’s army to learn soon after that Cyrus was dead making their victory invalid and finding themselves stranded in deep hostile territory. After trying to negotiating with the Persians they are deceived and they lose their general and senior officers which were captured and executed by the Persians. What happened next? They just elected replacement leaders and after a lot of marching and endless hostilities they manage to reach the Black sea shores and safety. So in conclusion: Cyrus dies > his army collapses (except the Greek mercenaries) Greek mercenaries leaders die > replaced with minor effect on the army The events above are from a period after the Greco-Persian wars but you can also find this behavioral pattern during the Persian wars as well Leonidas dies > His soldiers fight brutally to claim his dead body (it is said that the king’s dead body changed hands 4 times between the Greeks and Persians). Mardonius dies > Persian army collapses. We can also witness this going on at Alexander the Great’s campaign and just by observing the way the battle plan was drawn (when facing Darius) with Alexander attacking the king’s position directly or indirectly in order to break the Persian army and even without their king (or army leader) dead but fleeing the Persian army routed (at Granicus they fled leaving the Greek mercenaries fighting for them behind…again). PS: You could also add army cohesion to that scale as the Persian army relied on allied troops of unclear loyalty and discipline (some of the Greek city states that allied with the Persians seriously underperformed against their Greek compatriots staying idle during the battle or retreating)
"Suppose that the city of Sparta were to become deserted and that only the temples and foundations of buildings remained: I think that future generations would, as time passed, find it very difficult to believe that the place had really been as powerful as it was represented to be." -Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, c. 400 BC
nonetheless thucydides was born a greek, because of the spartans. Otherwise would be an half-breed mistake of a rapped white woman, like in america or greece today. Have fun.
At 24:53, the Homoioi Spartans were actually truly professional soldiers, they couldn't even live with their families between the ages of 7 to 30 because they were obligated to train for war and also weren't allowed to work. And you guys didn't even mention the phalanx, the phalanx formation was a clear advantage to the greeks in battle.
@@alexandertheok5649 The argument about the phalanx it's very probably true. But I believe that the armor and the materials used by the Greeks were superior, the Persians couldn't make a phalanx that was a wall of bronze like the Greeks. And I don't believe that the Greeks and Phoenicians fighting alongside the Persians had the numbers to make a difference in the outcome.
5:16 another reason why Spartans didn’t help the Greeks in Anatolia was that they were Ionian Greeks while the Spartans were Dorian Greeks. The Athenians helped the revolt because they were also Ionian.
This is wrong my friend. The Greeks of Anatolia werent all Ionians. Its just took the name the hole Asia Minor because of the Ionians(IONIA). Actually the city which started the revolt(MILITOS),was an Ionian colony. The 3 main Greek tribes who collonized Asia Minor since 8th century B.C. were the Aeolians(NORTH PART), the Ionians(CENTRAL PART) and the Dorians(SOUTH PART). Actually Herodotus was from Alicarnassus which was a Dorian collony. Sparta didnt support the revolt because thats was her policy at the time. Never to make long campaigns and never to risk her army out of Peloponese.
The Ionian that went to Sparta to talk with Cleomenes wanted to hire him to go all the way to Pasargadae, or something like that, which was ridiculous. "You mean that you want me to march THREE MONTHS to find the enemy? Get out!", or something like that.
Yes as pointed out by others this statement is false. While the Ionians had maybe a larger presence. The southern based poleis in "Ionia" were Dorians. Knidos, Kos, Halllikarnasos, etc...The Rhodians were also Dorian Greeks.
@@deathdoor Yes exactly my friend. Aristagoras was his name. Tyrrant of Miletus at the time. Ionian colony. Even the little daughter of Cleomenes didnt trust him. Argo was her name, who was five or six as far as i remember.
because the Greeks succeed to interdict the supply of a huge army, after the destruction of the Persian fleet in Salamis. ''Battles are won by warriors, the war is won by logistics''
I feel like you misunderstood Dan Carlin’s episodes on this because he goes into this over and over even detailing that incident with the Greeks trying to figure out how to kill the Persian Calvary guy. He just prefers the colorful version and you can tell by how he tells the story, but the whole tune he’s saying don’t trust these numbers, you can’t trust these sources, goes into the array of troops each side had, and generally says “idk” or “seems like it could have been” all the time when discussing possible reasons why the Greeks won. Basically he did a long version of this video with more “color”.
Just posted a comment echoing this sentiment. It seems like he probably didn’t actually listen to Carlin’s series on these events. If he did, I’m not sure how you could come out of that feeling like Carlin felt any one factor like weapon systems won the conflict.
What I learnt from Carlin was that in the rock paper scissors of majority archers vs majority heavy infantry, Persia beat Assyria but the Greeks won due to a surprise charge downhill at lightly armoured archers boarding boats
Def his 1 day of research is apparently on a 20 minute is apparently more valid take. The ego of this guy. This channels likes TK out too much opinions as fact is why I will never sub.
@@darthbelicheck3559 I think the problem in this topic is because of not enough valid historical sources remain, to pull out a solid truth. Nevertheless, it is still a topic of popular interest; so the channel tries to provide the audience with the best perspectives and opinions, and that's it. Of cause if you are so much into real fact only, you are free to not endorse it.
Definitely an over-reductionist critique of Dans take on the subject. He's open to talking with people who disagree with him, so see if you can do a collaboration on the topic.
You mentioned Persian armies descending on the "Hellenistic World". It was Hellenic, not Hellenistic. The Hellenistic culture only emerged as a mixture between Hellenic and Eastern cultures, following Alexander's conquests.
@@giorgosdim9845 You couldn't be more wrong. First, there was Mycaenean Hellas, which existed during the Bronze Age. Then, there was Classical Hellas (aka Classical Greece), which extended up to Philip of Macedon's conquest of most of Hellas. Then there was the Hellenic cultural group, encapsulating post-Alexander Hellas as well as the Successor States (Ptolmeic Egypt, Baktria, Pontus, Odryssia, the Seleucids and more). Hellenistic culture was a broad encapsulation of the cultures conquered by Philip and Alexander of Macedon once they were syncretized with the Hellenic culture. P.S. For those of you who are interested, even modern Greeks call Greece "Hellas" and themselves "Hellenic". The word Greek comes from Graecia, which was a Hellenic city-state that colonised southern Italy. Upon encountering the Romans, they introduced themselves as Graeci (people of Graecia), by which Romans then called all Hellenic peoples, and was gradually etymologically evolved into "Greek".
Something about the Greeks training for war ... all the Greek games (as among many others, the Olympics) were not just sports games but more "gymnastics" oriented to war. Hoplitodromos was a fully armored athlete running a stadium distance in record time. "Pagration" was a fighting game with bare fists, knees and kicks (usually without rules). Most of the so-called Games were part of the aggressive civilian preparation for war. And further more, do not forget that the Greek cities were independent states, often in long and bloody wars with each other. Oh yes ... the Greeks were well trained and ready for war.
A perfect example of what 'bad translation' is ... Greeks don't call them Olympic Games but Olympic Contests ('Agones' , which word has the same root as 'Agonia' - Strugle ). You wouldn't believe how many of those Bad translations are out there in the 'History' books ... one can realize only if he/she learns Ancient Greek Language which is the mother of all tongues.
i agree that Greek military preparedness was more a basic social construct than that of a government program, but what few commentators seem to ignore is the contrast of the Persian success along the Asiatic coastline vrs their failures (missed it by that || much!) vrs Greece itself. 1) The myriad number of little islands and coves of the Aegean sea made it a perfect environment for ambush as opposed to the coastline of Asia. 2) Logistics for the Persians along the Asian coastline was fairly simple and similar to other campaigns they fought a thousand time before, but Greece was different. The stony ground of Greece did not yeild enough crops to sustain a large Persian force, and so it would have to be supplied across the Aegean sea, which Greek fleets could and did intercept at points of Greek choosing to maximize their strengths and reduce their vulnerabilities. 3) Once the battle of Salamis destroyed the Persian ability to supplement their supply and logistical requirements with naval supply, the Persians had to reduce their number of troops that garrisoned Greece, which in turn opened the situation up for a Greek win at Plateau. So, no, the Greeks did not win due to simple martial superiority but because they exploited the terrain and geographical position they enjoyed in Greece to maximize their force multipliers while the Persians were fighting a predominately naval war, for which they much depended on Rhodes, Cyprus and Tyre to provide and had much less experience. The Persians lengthy supply lines over sea that was not easily secured made the final long term goals untenable over sea.
i think Greece is the only country in the world who has suffered more slavery in their history than any other nation from the Roman annexation of Greece in 146 BC till 1453 and then the Ottoman conquest of Greece which that lasted for almost 400 years till 1828 so it is almost two thousand years of slavery that Greeks suffered ..........
@@specfei9895 what does this have to do with what he said? He’s talking about slavery that lasted thousands of years. Comparing that to the less than 200 years in America is idiocy.
@† Vato † first of all christianity is not the religion of greeks and once greek fell to rome after that and to this date greece is pretty much irrelevent and you said who else did the same in history but i won't say who i will say the only one that did that is Iran and Iranians because Iran is the only country to became a super power many times, many ups and downs but Iran always came on top so from the Median Empire to The fall of Achaemenid Empire to Alexander the Great then they became a super power again as the Parthians as The Sassinids and as the Safvids and now the Islamic republic of Iran not a supeer power but hey right now whole world is aginst Iran but Iran is not giving up. Iran the Epitome of Pride. so tell me which other country like Iran. i like greece a lot great country though.
@† Vato † no wonder greece suffered two thousand years slavery because they stop passage to europe at the time when there was no europe and they suffered it because they could hold a shield.
Your arguments at 27:30 actually make the opposite case you mean it to. Quality of troop doesn't mean super human movie stunts, it means a good discipline. Like not over extending your center and being collapsed on like at Marathon. Or continuing to execute the battle plan even if your commander falls like at Plataea.
One thing that bothered me is that you kept saying "history is written by the victors". That's true when the enemy is wiped out, but, as you say in the video, Persia was hardly ended by defeat. The problem is simply that the Persians had a much weaker literary trail. You can blame this on the disruption and destruction caused by the Alexandrian conquest, the Mongols shitcanning the region into (seemingly permanent) insignificance, or disrespect by the Muslim empires. Whatever the cause, the reason we have Greek accounts and not Persian ones is because Greek successors cared enough (or were lucky enough to find) to preserve them while Persian successors did not, not because the Greeks 'won'.
persians did write but all of them burned by greeks and arabs and mongols after that. books and writing were very important to persians so they didn't burn books and destroyed tablets that had knowledge or were useful unlike some other nations.
@Stateira Ardeshiri Of course the Persians contributed a lot to history and to the inventions that we still use to this day, but in this case we're talking about the documents and writing that we have from the persians of this time. We barely have any writings passed down from the Persians due to nations and people over the centuries destroying them or even losing them.
@Stateira Ardeshiri Nowhere did I imply that the lack of knowledge was due to the inferiority of the Persians. I certainly did not want to engage in a cultural pissing match. It was more aimed at the use of that particular phrase. Sorry you expended so much effort missing the point.
Great video but I think you forgot another very important event early on, Athens used to be ruled by a Tyrant Hippias who was deposed and then Athenians started a democracy. The Spartans felt that a democratic Athens was a danger to Sparta and threatened to invade Athens and return Hippias to the throne. However Athens sent envoys to Darius Court to seek his aid because they feared Sparta marching on Athens and he told Athen's envoy for water and earth. To Persians that is a subjugation under the king of Persia but to Greeks alliances were temporary thing which lead to the huge misunderstanding. Anyways Sparta did march to Athens but the Athenian could not send an messenger to Persia and bring the Persian army fast enough so the Athenian army marched out and met the Spartan army and defeated them. This gave Athens a huge boost in confidence and thought nothing of the Alliance with Persia since they realized they could take care of themselves. But in Darius eyes Athens was a vessel kingdom to Persia and soon when the Ionian revolt happens and was aided by Athens wasn't just seen as another region in revolt but since they help Ionians they were seen as the instigators and leaders. They had to be punished in the Persia eyes
oversimplified but yes, that's what's behind the Ionian Revolt. Should also mention that Athens invaded and burnt temples in Sardis, capital of the satrapy, which later became the reason why so many temples got destroyed in mainland Greece. Talking of Athens as the poor guys that got invaded and did nothing to deserve it, it's completly wrong. And HER points it out all throughout his works, he keeps reminding Athenesians that their narration is not true, it's imbued in propaganda.
Speed bump? Bra it was huge. It gave the rest of Greece time to collect aswell as shifting their mindset to winning the war instead of a hopeless situation. Dude
Somehow he is trying to diminish the insane feat to his "objective" analysis , but apparently we dont know a lot .. lolol we know so much directly written from sources both Persian and greek and historical data. The campaing was seriously documented from all sides
Persia was the superior veteran player, who humiliated everyone until everyone thought that their only way of surviving at all was to trust each other and work together. Didnt you watch the video? Its there just to prove you wrong.
If you're looking for a solid female character, You can find Admiral Artemis there in the battle of Salamis. She was the second best admiral of the Persian Fleet. Second only to that of Sidon.
@@vahidhashemi9684 You mean Artemisia. But do we have any actual and trustworthy sources supporting this claim? The sources I've read up to this date weren't as favorable about her actual exploits. So I was kinda surprised but not surprised to see someone who could be none other than her on a second 300 movie poster (though haven't seen the movie yet) and expected the makers just put some recognizable figure into it and made her actually cooler than she was.
@@Epifairos There is some evidence that Artemisia was a real person, though it's likely that she was glorified to the same extent as other similar people from around the same time (Xerxes, Themistocles and Brasidas, to name a few). Propaganda was very important for morale, after all, if your commander is legendarily good then you're going to fight harder because you genuinely BELIEVE that they're that good. Same for fighting against them, if the enemy commander is a strategic legend, the heart could go out of your fight. As for Artemisia's historicity, it's likely that her reputation was gained partly from merit, partly from ferocity, partly from ruthlessness (it is currently thought that after winning a battle she would kill all but one man from each city-state, mutilate him by removing his ears and one hand, and then send him home to report on what she had done to spread fear, panic and her legend), partly from her competent subcommanders, partly from propaganda (see above) and partly from the fact that she was a woman commander in a time when war was firmly a purely man's domain. That said, reputations like that must be gained for a reason.
*_5:25_**_ You cannot just dismiss the burning of Sardis so easily @Invicta. There were four capitals of the Persian empire. Babylon, Persepolis, Ecbatana and the fourth one was supposed to be Sardis which was meant to be the Capital for Anatolia. This was not just the capital of the Persians but also by the Greeks. While it may be unclear who built the city it is clear that it was inhabited by greeks at one point in history. So the Greeks burned a city that was inhabited by Greeks because it was under the rule of Persia. They cut off the nose to spite the face. The people living in Sardis were probably Greek noble families and the ones burning it were a bunch of poor plebs. Of course, this would infuriate the Persian king._*
i might be wrong but i think you put more weight onto nationality then is fitting for the time, we call them greeks, but i believe they were more tied to their city state or culture rather than to bigger idea of nationality, after all, greek states were constantly fighting each other
Bit of a weird shot at Dan Carlin at the beginning. He covers pretty much everything you did and more in his podcasts on these events. I don’t think he ever claims that one single element like weapon systems was the reasons the Greeks were successful, though he does talk about that factor as one of several that were in the Greeks favor. I think you two would actually agree on most everything you covered here. Great video though, love the channel.
its because this is a bias interpretation, according to this guy, the Persians were peaceful kind enlightened empire, and forced into a war with ignorant Greeks that should have known their place. note the language, persians dont commit genocide, or destroy or rob/pillage. Instead, they clean up, and incorporate. as in any history lesson, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Dan also has always went out of his way to state that he’s not an “expert” too. His commentary in King of Kings is great cause it sounds more like he’s just having a conversation with you and the whole Arms and Armor comparison was something for him to geek out about. If anything, he makes it sound like possible supply problems for the Persians are what led to Greek victory.
Yes, the author offers to tell us why and instead simply gives a narration of events. We are left to conclude Persia failed because it lost battles. The author gives no explanation of why.
@@cc0767 Nope, you can have an army of a hundred thousand but if you don't have the food and supplies to keep them on the field then you have poor logistics.
not true. they decided to flee from Athens after the army lost at the Thermopylis, and up until the last moment they considered a diplomatic resolution with the persian army (ie ally with them and formally accepting persian rule).
The Mongol who felt victim of Japan Kamikaze send sympathies to the Persians drowned at Mount Athos The theme of Random chance in both invasions failure is similar
This video seems to dismiss the Greeks as stumbling into victory and seems to imply that the Persians essentially achieved their goals so they didn’t quite lose either. Yet somehow the historical record is bias because the Greeks were the victors. Completely missing from this analysis is the importance of the makeup of the forces.The Greeks had a cohesive fighting force, while the Persians had a massive multi-cultural force. This is why their lines broke at vital times. Another dismissed factor is the tactics. You mention that the terrain helped the Greeks but that’s not all just accidental. In many instances the Greeks forced battle in terrain/locations that favored them. This isn’t just some coincidence, it’s smart tactics. I get trying to push back against the 300-ish notion that the Greeks were this elite force and the Persians were just large but this take goes too far in the other direction.
his info still solid though persia had some greek cities on its side though so they also had some discipline among their troops and don’t forget the royal guards, immortals, they were professional soldiers they had great deal of discipline and highly equipped so the man made no mistakes and as it pains me as half greek but yes ancient greeks tended to exaggerate for propaganda and diplomacy purposes and yes taking into consideration technically speaking persians did acheive most of their goals and it’s known that they definitely fueled the war among the greek states till Phillip of macedon came 💁🏻♂️
Everything that @Antonio said is correct, and I would also add that the greeks were BY NO MEANS a cohesive and/or homogenous force/society. I don't know where you get that idea from, but I see exactly were you're going with the "multicultiral" line about Persia, which is pretty ironic knowing that Persia's acceptance/integration of various cultures is one of the main reasons why they got so great and powerful in the first place.
@@j4genius961 the greeks are a cohesive force as they all fight in the same way, talk the same language and have the same helenic values. Sure the persians have a vast empire but many of their tributaries as shown revolted against persian rule and their forces funnily enough are going to break before a man defending his home in a tightly knitt phalanx with his fellow greeks. The persians can be tolerant and intergrationist but they are still multi cultural and with it comes some serious flaws, a scythian is going to have nothing in common with any of the other vassals and they are gonna look out for there own.
@@Tommonius Xerxes the Great, King of Kings, in his time the leader of the largest empire the world had even known, is lectured on the "dangers of multiculturalism" by a cartoon frog. Simply incredible.
As a fan of both Dan Carlin and his excellent Kings of Kings series, I think the criticism laid out in this video is valid. Dan Carlin acknowledges the uncertainty in the narrative of these events due to a lack of contemporary and unbiased sources. However, he makes a conscious decision to use Herodotus as his main source because he thought it made for a more dramatic and compelling story (he compared the theatrics of Herodotus to modern Hollywood action flicks). Carlin does liken the Battle of Plataea to a (US) football game where only one side wears pads (the hoplites) because it's how Herodotus describes it more or less. However, this narrative decision is made with open eyes, and Carlin warns the listener about this bias several times. Therefore, I don't think the account in Kings of Kings is reductive or misleading, but rather an entertaining and informative account of one of the only surviving viewpoints. That said, the counterpoint in this video is wonderfully delivered. I love both Dan Carlin and Invicta for what they both do!
In addition to that, Dan Carlin also did mention the Persians being overstretched. His explanation for the Persian loss was not attributed to one thing.
He also spoke several times about how the numbers on these things don’t always add up. You can’t just make armor and spears and have hoplites just like you can’t just make armor and short swords and have Roman legionaries. Boiling it down to weapons systems alone is impossible.
Dan main goal seems to always entertain, more than be accurate. He is an "amateur" historian, or even less than that, and he makes this clear frequently. He just wants to tell a good story and his listeners knows this.
I still find it funny (pleasantly so) as a Persian that we and Greeks don't hold a grudge towards one another about this. I guess when both of us had razed and burned each other's cities to the ground so often it's like two friends reminiscing over the old days. That or maybe because we both hate the Ottomans lmfao.
One of the main "exports" Ancient Greece had were military leaders (warlord or Polemarchoi) with a warband act as mercenaries all across Mediterranean as well as Asia. They were masters of warfare and it was a main reason why we Greeks never got along each other. Aside from philosophy, democracy etc. our ancestors were warlike people.
When the Persians invaded Greece, they were ruled by the Achaemenids, and used large numbers of infantry spearman/archer combos. Such troops were vulnerable to hoplite heavy infantry.
They relied on cavalry for most of their elite troops. The footmen were just there to swing swords , throw spears and look mean. They needed wide spaces and plains to operate, and Persia and middle Anatolia were just that. The Khwarezm empire in Central Asia, which was heavily Persianized also enjoyed large wide plains, at least until the Mongols arrived, bringing even more superior cavalry tactics. Greeks had stronger infantry and armor, with capable generals to command them, excelling in close quarters and keeping formation. If Alexander himself was not a cavalry genius Persia might have won at Issus or Gaugamela.
@@SantomPh I agree that the Persian army was a bad fit for the mountainous Greek terrain. But I don't think Alexander won at Gaugamela solely because he was a cavalry genius. I believe Alexander's genius was to use combined arms tactics at a time when the term wasn't even invented yet. Those tactics weren't even his own - he had inherited the hammer and the anvil idea from his father. Not meaning to dismiss his merits, only, he was building on lots of stuff, it isn't like he came out of nothing.
I feel like it's the same with Carrhae. I see a lot of people giving all the credit to horse archers being superior over heavy infantry, but many other Roman vs Parthian encounters show that is not the case. I think the biggest blow would be seeing your son return as a head on a pike. You can't expect a man to be composed and logical in that situation.
The son who you deliberately sent to his death trap & the son who you betrayed & ignored several times & the son whose head you recieved weeks before the battle you mean ?! Yeah, *no actually* ........ it wasn't that much of a blow to him at all !
The man who foolishly put his whole army into a square so he can be surrounded by archers on horseback. And that was before his son got killed. (Also because of his dumb command to just charge lol)
Great video and nice analysis! One thing I wanted to point out is that not many people actually argue that the Persians were weak troops. The common analysis I see is that the Persian quality (both in training and in gear) was very spotty... you'd have some contingents every bit as kitted out as the hoplites, and some which just didn't bring the weight of metal.
I find it hard to believe that the Greek warriors were not superior to the Persians. The whole purpose of hiring mercenaries is that they have advantages that your troops do not have. The Persians used Greek mercenaries profusely. Given the high cost of maintaining mercenaries it does not make sense to keep hiring them if your own troops are equal to them in quality. You also have to take into account things such as the Battle of Cunaxa, 401 B.C. where Arsaces' left flank collapsed and fled the battle after engaging the hoplites whereas the right flank actually routed Cyrus the Younger's flank. The Persians would not engage the returning hoplites who had been engaged in driving off the left flank from the field. Throughout Xenophon's march up country the Persians would not engage in pitched battles and when small scale hand to hand engagements did occur, they got the worst end of it. Their successes came from hit and run tactics and excessive use of missile troops although these did not destroy the Greeks, who eventually made it home. Then you have to consider their heavy use of mercenaries again when facing Alexander the Great. The point is why keep using Greek mercenaries if the Greek warriors are not superior to yours. You can draw many men from across your empire, who have varied fighting skills thus making your armies more dynamic but you insist on using Greek mercenaries. Regardless of exaggerations, the fact is that the Persians lost more battles than the Greeks did during the wars.
Uncle, brother, read the history, then tell a poem, Cyrus, the Persians, who are all guiding you, what do you say? We failed a little. We defeated the count and then with the betrayal of a soldier Alexander was able to win😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
We all won the wars, we have a civilization, we defeated Rome and Greece, you have nothing, you have a right, it's hard, you lost, because we are Persians, we defeated the world, if you remember, you did not defeat Maro and Rome once. Cyrus the Great, who you say easily conquered your country, then you are not enough to defeat us😪😪😪😪
@@AriyanHawes you never defeated greece and never defeated rome winning some battles doesn't count as a defeat since you just took some lands and nothing else the arabs and the greeks destroyed you on the other hand
Here are the facts. 1. The Greek naval victory at Salamis destroyed the Persian war fleet. As a result, the Persians could not supply their vast armies of three hundred and plus thousand men with food, horses, and additional troop reinforcements. As a result, the Persians had to limit their army to 40 to 50,000 which made it so that the united Greeks could field the same number of troops in any given battle. 2. The Persians used their numerous cavalry as an instrumental component in their previous battles that established their Empire in the East. The mountainous terrain of Greece prevented them from having or using them in any battles in Greece. Of course, the Persians could not supply the fodder needed for large number of war horses. 3. The Greeks were united. The Persians thought they could disunite them. The Persians were wrong. 4. Revolts and invasions in other parts of the Persian Empire distracted the Persians. 5.The heavier armor and weapons of the Greeks were more superior to the wicker shields of the Persian infantry. The Greek phalanx could not be withstood by the Persian infantry. It was like the ancient version of battle tanks. 6. Never underestimate the spirit of soldiers fighting for their home land nor soldiers who fight with the same language, and culture and religion
Flashbacks to my Herodot seminar in university and reading the books.....and having to write a paper on some of the more "fantastic" elements of it......"good times"
This is why I love the Greeks. They’re close to unbreakable. Saw massive armies in front of them, with an army half their size, stand together with their brothers and still fights. That’s very impressive, especially people’s that had no internet, cars, or a/c.
Only a few cities did that though... as you can see on the map, most of Greece was either neutral or actually bent the knee to the Persians. So they're nowhere near "unbreakable" or "united", a few resisted powerfully and ended up winning.
Impressive, looking at how greece is being invaded by primitive criminals, lost most of its turism (i wont be returning to greek islands to see african marauders) without putting up a fight.
@@chrism7199 Actually many Greek states like Epirus and Akarnania, as welll as Corcyra and the states in the modern Heptanese didn't even intervene, the Thebans allied with the Medes and the Macedonians and the Greeks of Asia Minor also. Only really the Athenians, the Plataeans and the Eretreans and the Peloponnesians fought the Persian onslaught meaningfully from 490 to 479 B.C
I love the idea of winning a war by "checking boxes" while getting steam rolled in every major engagement of the war. They had more men, better cavalry, better logistics and more resources. They got smoked.
The Persian infantry were too light to fight the phalanx head on but we often read that the Persian infantry would only flee if their leader was killed, they also had a march named after them (Persian counter march ~ Xenophon) which shows they were trained soldiers. There are so many accounts of Persian commanders dying in battle, from king Cyrus to general Mardonius to Prince Cyrus the Younger and the Satraps who died trying to kill Alexander at the Granicus they seemed to have lost a lot of leaders and it always caused a collapse of the army.
you're just a racist idiot. The only thing that got smoked was Athens. Convenient of you to leave that pathetic western defeat out. Lmao. The Persians won.
I'm interested to hear Dan Carlin's take on these things, especially now because I don't think he'd say something like: "They won because they had better arms and armor". I guess its time to listen to all of Kings Of Kings...
I don't think it is fair to say that is his main argument. Just that he quotes a lot of primary sources like Herodotus who say this about battles like Marathon despite it not necessarily being true.
@@InvictaHistory Thanks for your reply. I like Dan Carlin but haven't heard the podcast in question, loved this video and reminded me I have some hardcore history I have to catch up on. Its always good to hear the different sides of the stories / different perspectives and hope you make more stuff about Greece 'cause videos like this are enthralling to me.
I listened to King of Kings recently and can't remember what, if anything, Dan Carlins specific comments are on the greeks in battle or if he just lets quotes from herodotus speak, but Id argue the whole point of the King of Kings series is to try and look at these classic battles from a Persian perspective, starting all the way back with founding of Persia and discissing their culture and what made them distinct. Its a while before greece even enters the picture, I dont think its in the first part at all, and only partially in the second. His specific comments on the battles may be more innaccurate than I remember, but I want to say he made relatively simmilar comments to this video, including how this was only a minor issue to Persia, and none of their "losses" were as major of setbacks as greek writers like to present. Maybe he could have had more contextual commentary around Herodotus's quotes but even that I want to say he calls greek propaganda, and calls his numbers into question. This is all alongside his commentary on how Athens had only recently become a democracy, and their were still major tension surrounding that, or the propaganda at play with getting the Athenians involved in the Ionian revolts in the first place.
Invicta: gladly rambles about little to none surviving Persian artefacts on Persian strategies Olso invicta: Greece with some of the most known ancient historians alive at the time: We don’t know the accuracy of the information due history fog and greek propaganda.
@@Vossenator Nyaaaah - I don't necessarily think so. If you have a wealth of information already, a propaganda account can suppliment that because you can possibly make out what is fabricated and what might be real, true. If you have little to no information though, a lie tells you little because you cannot seperate truth and fiction reliably. @jimcle mctson Yes, the Greeks wrote down a lot and invicta necessarily used that information to tell this story - but that doesn't mean that we can take every Greek source at face value either, invicta is right about that. If we had a lot more Persian sources, we would have to weed out the propaganda from the truth there too, of course.
@Ionian Yes, there is history here and this is isn't being debated. But propaganda doesn't necessarily mean turning the story on its' head 100% and claiming you won when, in fact, you capitulated. The Greeks won those battles but stuff like numbers, individual moves and details like that are quick to be bent and it is tough to get it right, even if an historian is trying his best to not let any of the many wrong tellings he is confronted with slip into his records. We can be pretty certain that the Persians did NOT field anything close to the claimed hundreds of thousands of soldiers, so this 'detail' is very probably wrong. The Greeks are by no means the only party being scrutinized in this way. Ceasar's numbers are probably wrong for sure in most occasions, for example. It isn't unlikely e.g. that he had the numerical advantage in a number of his battles in Gaul instead of, as he claimed, being vastly outnumbered. Yes, we know that he won those battles and that he won the war - but that doesn't mean that we can trust every word he ever said.
Regarding the battle of Marathon my professor in the Greek military academy I served had written a book about what happened. He claimed that the Greeks lured the Persians to fight in a swamp that could not be seen by the enemy, where the Persian cavalry was trapped and could not move!
13:24 we should mention the famous return of Pheidippides after the battle was won for the Greeks.Legend says that he ran all the way from Marathon to Athens ,wearing full gear as to not be seen as a deserter, and reaching the acropolis to announce victory with one single word "Νενικήκαμεν" (we won) and then dropped dead.This event resulted in the famous olympic sport of marathon run as we know it today
When Athens was sacked, it was an emptied city, because all of the citizens had left to salamis, where they naval battle took place. So sacking yes...killings..doubt it.
@@todo9633 mostly old men and religious men who refused to let them step foot in the temples. well that and the fact that the acropolis is a hell of a defensible position to this date. which is why the persians covered the sky in arrows before marching up.
I like the way you do your commercials. I can easily skip them, but I generally actually listen to them because they are about cool stuff and I like YOUR review - not the company's advertising. When things aren't forced or done underhanded, it's amazing how people respond differently... take THAT - Adpocalypse... Some of the very best military analysis I've ever heard! Bravo! 22:45 And they say Socialism doesn't work, comrades! Yeah, it only helped save Western Civilization that one time... 26:48 Or, as Lt. Col. Hal Moore said in "We Were Soldiers," - where the metal meets the meat... Your points about the end, about countering those "Nihilistic ideas" that "we can't know anything, and it's pointless," were amazing. I agree, and wish I could have drawn on your words many times over the years in discussions and debates. 29:11 In the Modern world of martial firearm use, we say there are 5 factors. I think they're universal. 1 is Mindset. 2 is Tactics. 3 is Skill/Attributes. 4 is Gear. 5 is Luck. You're right, random chance has determined history to a huge extent. Our fates hang on the great D20 in the sky lol. "You can't count on luck, but luck counts!"-John Correia, evidence-based defensive traininer, channel ActiveSelfProtection Great video, as always. Keep up the good work, you're a true historian :)
As a Greek (and a historian of Ancient Greece and Achaemenid Persia), this is was well-researched and balanced presentation of the events. Inevitably, there are a few inaccuracies, but largely a good analysis - well done! Greetings to the great people and civilization of Iran from your ancient frenemies: the Greeks!
Great presentation, although I believe you tried too hard to refute the general consensus about the reasons Persians lost. Maybe it was an attempt to be a bit more reactionary, devils advocate and revisionary but nevertheless it contained some flaws. For example, drawing the performance in battlefield from the Ionian revolt battles and putting them on the same scale as the mainland greeks is wrong. We can't compare the Ionians who took arms and fought for the first time after decades, with the mainland greek city state hoplites who were fighting an internal city state war every 6 months. The experience and the equipment, as well as the tactics can't be compared, nor it can be a data point for the mainland greek performance in battle. Same mistake was done by Persians after the revolt, where each time they faced a substantial greek force (not counting the 7k in Thermopylae, though for the size of the army they stalled Persians too long) they were defeated (Marathon, Plataea, or the later agis and cleomenes adventures). Even the 10000 of Xenophon show how much better professionally and how much more equipped the Greeks were in warfare. The Persians were simply outmatched in quality and tactics as most of their usual battles were on plain fields taking advantage of the size of the army rather tactical maneuvers. Secondly, one of the most important factors was the cohesion of the armies. While the greek city states were fighting each other, they used same equipment, tactics, language etc, the Persian army had heavy armoured Greeks along with tribes with nothing more than a spear as equipment. This has a psychological impact, for an army seeing so many light armoured units of theirs killed so easily. Persians also relied a lot on their cavalry for their campaigns, while greek cavalry was non existent , something that would surely give great advantage to the Persians at least at Plataea. Don't forget that as history is written by the victors, the defeated will always have an excuse (in Thermopylae it was efialtes, in marathon it was the marsh and the cavalry of Persians not deployed in time, in salamina it was the narrow straits and the defection of some Ionian ships, in Plataea it was the death of mardonius in the heat of the battle and so on) All in all this was the high point of persia, from the Persian wars and onwards we see a transition in warfare, with the greek style of fighting, and equipment being the dominant one, against the quite dated for its era Persian one. Alexander's swift conquest of Persia with a much smaller force would be the high point of the greek warfare, until it lost its power and effectiveness by the modernised for that era Roman warfare and military system.
Not exactly, persians had great cabalry and they ised it alot and great army, but the phalanx was most imoactful when cavalry and other means are not very suitable. Persians were super in big terran with the use of cavalry plus the other forces. Alexander made army to fight that but before Greeks were i think successful in terrains that the pahalanx can be used while cavalry and ither forces abd combinations are less suitable.
Very good points friend although I have a hard time accepting that the Persian Army was on the whole inferior to the Greeks. I’d say each had its strengths and unique weaknesses. After all the Persian army has had numerous competent and talented commanders and famous victories. Below is a list of a few Persian high points during and post GP wars. After Xerxes burns Athens twice and leaves Greece with the bulk of his army the possibly outnumbered troops under Mardonius put up a decent last fight at Plataea with a large contingent successfully retreating north into Anatolia. The Athenian expedition to Egypt was a massive Greek defeat resulting in peace talks. While ejecting Persian garrisons from central/northern Greece the Greek coalition was unable to take Doriscus held by the competent Mascames. King Agesilaus II’s invasion of Anatolia years later resulted in zero gains territorial or money wise and only a few skirmishes with an eventual Spartan withdrawal. Any gains he did receive were due to support from Satrap Tisaphernes who opposed Satrap Pharnabazus (Persian loyalist facing Agesilaus II.) The Persian’s deployed a successful navy during the Corinthian War that crippled the Spartan Navy off of Cnidus and allowed Athens room to breath. The Greeks were effectively managed diplomatically by Persia who installed Sparta as a Loyal greek lawman post Corinthian war upon threat of Persian military action. Alexander nearly lost the naval war while thrashing Darius III, facing possible supply shortages as a result. The last recorded Achaemenid battle, the Persian Gates 330BCE resulted in a Persian Thermopylae. With Ariobarzanes going the way of Leonidas. The list goes on:)
Your comparisons of strengths leave out any naval comparison. Salamis demonstrated/confirmed Greek superiority at sea; after Salamis, the Persians were on the defensive. How often did a Persian fleet defeat the Greeks, before or after Salamis? The Greeks retreated from Artemesium, yes, but they were not defeated.
There are many factors playing in this. The Greeks (the free Greeks who resisted) had an overall fleet of 371 trirremes to be exact. The Persians had 3 times that number, about 1200 of them. They had lost quite some ships. Herodotus mentions about 400) in bad weather in the notoriously difficult Aegean sea. Yeah, not many people are aware of how tricky is the Aegean sea - too much tourism in summer in modern Greece makes people think it is an easy sea! But let them sail in winter there!. Yet they had replenished the numbers, lets say bringing in 200 more to make it about a 1000 ships just before the battle of Salamis. We need to note that there is a repeated pattern in Greek-Persian conflicts were Persians always tried to bring 3 times the Greek numbers, precisely because they knew that 1:1 Greeks had the upper hand. Why? Because on land Greek troops were usually heavily armed and better in close combat. And in sea, the Greeks were superior to the Persians. The Greek fleet of 371 triremes was comprising of 180 Athenian triremes, 40 Corinthian and 30 from Aegina, the three most nautical Greek states at the time who had superb ships and highly trained crews. They also had a tight command and excellent knowledge of the Aegean sea. On the contrary Persian fleet was a collage of 300 Phoenician ships. 200 Egyptian ships, 150 Cypriot ones (Greeks - thus not trusted), 100 Ionian ones (Greeks - thus not trusted), 100 Cilicians, 100 Hellespontine Phrygians (many Greeks in as well), 70 Carian ones, 60 Aeolian ones (Greeks - thus not trusted), 50 Lycian), 30 Pamphylians (mostly Greeks - thus not trusted), 30 Dorian (Greeks - thus not trusted), 17 Cycladian ones (Greeks - thus not trusted). Out of the 1207 ships mentioned by Herodotus about 350 were Greek and another nearly 200 had a large proportion of Greek crews - which were all not trusted. Add that on top that Phoenicians and Egyptians (two nations hating viscerally each other!), had each 300 and 200 ships as well as the large number of other nationalities, it creates an army where communications and co-ordination of actions and moves were really a headache. Add on top of that, that plenty of Greeks on the Persian camp were passing information to the free Greeks - and first and foremost Alexander I of Macedonia who was named after the war as a Philhellene - and back then the term was given to Greeks who were nationalists, i.e. who fought for the common cause of all Greeks, not just of their own state), it all gives us a situation in which Persians really had not at all any upper hand just because of their numbers. So Greeks played in Persians smartly letting them go in the narrow straights of Salamis and waited the right moment when they knew the wind would change direction at around noon (something the Persian command ignored) and as such they delivered a devastating counter attack. The rest is history. Numbers usually prevail. Just not always. History has taught us this lesson multiple times.
@@alexwschan185 Oh yes, plenty indeed. Far more Greek sailors and ships in the Persian navy than the % of Greeks in the land troops. Now, the Greek governors of the Persian-occupied Greek regions of Ionia, Aeolia, Doris, Pamphylia and Cyprus were kind of willingly collaborating with Persia, the most prominent being Artemisia. The investors and makers of these ships were also glad to make money. But the Greek crews were largely conscripted as servicemen to the Empire and as such not all were happy about what they were doing there to their brothers in Greece. As such there was less motivation among a substantial part of the overall Persian navy. Add this on the fact that Egyptians had brought 2/3rds as many ships as their age-old enemies Phoenicians and thus the Phoenician "upper hand" could had been challenged by them - we do not know details but these two were enemies who hated viscerally each other and they could only work together under the Persian hand. So while Persians had 3 times the numbers of Greeks, they certainly faced organisational problems. Greeks too were divided in their states and since each came with his navy they had severe disagreements but of course under the imminent threat they managed to find ways to consolidate on a given strategy.
While Persians have some heavy infantry - their armies have mainly light inf. and cavalry. Which is weaker in this terrain. Thermopylae is great example. In Asian Minor and Northern Greese terrain allow persians to use their strong sides. But in many greese battle hoplites fight vs "poorly" (not cuz they poor or bad, but cuz they are have different combat role) armed light infantry. We can read about this from herodotus and over autors. And this is the reason why later persians establish a custom to hire greek mercenaries in great numbers. Who later will fight Alexander in Asian Minor.
Yes and no. Difficult terrain has to be used properly. As Athens showed in the battle of Sphacteria, light troops could exhaust and overwhelm heavy Spartan hoplites in bad terrain. Yes - the conditions of that battle were pretty specific but the military forces of the Greek states generally relied on both sides agreeing, in a gentlemanly fashion so to speak, to fight on suitable terrain. Terrain that would have suited the mass phalanx, given that all sides were predominately armed as such. As soon as that wasn't the case, they could be quite vulnerable. So I'd say a commander committed to 'total war' in such times, and not agreeing to 'gentlemanly norms', would actually prefer light troops in diffcult terrain for their maneouverability. However as others have pointed out here, logistics are key here too. Given enough time, a wily commander could pick apart, harry and demoralise a heavy Greek phalanx with skirmishes and ranged attacks with nimble and swift light infantry/cavalry, I'm sure. But would they have the time and resources to do this? At some point they would be forced to accept a set-piece battle to try and finish off the phalanx before they ran out of their own supplies. Although there a great deal of mystery as to exactly what how they were organised, it's interesting to see that when Alexander came to power later on, his elite foot units were not the sarissa/massed phalanx, but the ones that had different roles, such as skirmishing, ranged attacks etc. Possibly because he was more of a maneover commander and relied on such troops, as well as his fabled companion cavalry amongst other arms, to move fast to surprise the enemy, while the phalanx's role was to just block and hold. Perhaps we have been coloured by the later republican Roman army, where it's velites skirmishers were the lowest and poorest class of citizen, least well armed and not the crucial for the main focus of Roman infantry tactics, as well as the continual development of the heavy class of armoured horseman that could easily swot aside lightly armed infantry?
@@lordvenusianbroon You totally wrong, lol. Battle of Sphacteria? It was 11000 vs 440 lol. What you even talking about? Peltasts was lowest class in Greese too. While hoplites was much respected elite. Almost the same with post-Alexander states. Simply cuz light infantry most of the times cant deal decisive blow. They can support, but they cant win by themself. In case of Persian army - they already have strong cavalry, and was on of few nations in this time with existing heavy cavalry. And they mainly use light infantry, even if it "could easily swot aside" by cavalry. Why? Cuz cavarly cant do it easily. Do you forget what stirrups still didnt exist? Persian archer units have light spearmans in their ranks, who protect archers from cavalry and cover unit with light, but large shields. Also persian cavalry cover infantry from enemy cavalry. This work extremely well in open fields at this times, but purely in mountain terrain of Greese. Why heavy infantry strong here? No, not cuz enemes have some gentelmen agreements (where you even find it? Do you have proofs?). Simply cuz such terrain left ittle place to flanking. Face to face, this is fight where heavy infantry shine. Light infantry cant fight here in melee for long, cant rely on cavalry for protection and eventually render useless. Remember - this is reality, not some PC game. Than melee starts - missle weapons cant be used anymore, friendly fire here is not an option.
@@Chikanuk Lol had a bit too much rant-juice? I've tried to go through what you're trying to argue, and I'm afraid nothing really seems to make a lot of sense. I was rather hoping for an interesting discussion, but I think Spartan265 is right and probably English isn't your native language. I will try and keep it simple. Bad terrain is generally bad for phalanxes and their cohesion, alway best to try and avoid it if you want to do a major pitched battle. (But then again the Greeks knew their own land better than the Persians and therefore held the advantage on how to utilise it with the forces they had in these campaigns, so there is that.) I wasn''t talking about Cavalry at the time, but later developments way in the future. I should have been more precise, so apologies. When I write 'gentleman's agreements' in quotation marks it means: don't take these terms literally. But when two city states decided to have a pitched battle if one side had a decided advantage in terms of terrain, the other side would rarely take up the offer of a battle (something that has occurred in all wars, across all time!) If you wanted to entice an enemy to attack in a full battle, in ancient times, a neutral level plain was the most likely 'offered' site to succeed. Of course there are a host of other reasons why you might attack or not: logistics as I said before, the morale of your men, political considerations, to gain surprise etc, and sometimes ambushes worked extremely well. But commanders of both sides would have a tacit understanding that if a regular battle was to be had, both sides had to agree to a certain place! The class issue is, I think, important. Were all hoplites elite? Yes, in a way, I can see them as the 'knights' of the Greek States. They were the upper class of their societoes and controlled them, including what was written about them. In the same way that the English lionised their elite knights for their victory at Agincourt in 1415, but they barely talked up their longbowmen. Only later did we attribute the value to the longbowmen that had in winning the battle and the successful English tactics at the time. So similary for Greek culture at the time, I believe that the clash of two phalanxes with two sets of hoplites was seen as the pinnicle of warfare. (Spartans, of course, famously disdained any weapon that could kill at a distance, or anything like fighting from a horse.) Of course this was highly idealised. Anything a simple archer or peltast did was unlikely to be recorded or seen as worthwhile, even if it had a major impact on action. Anyway, look, I didn't quite agree with your original comment. Some of it is fine, but I thought I'd try and discuss some of the issues more. I must now go and do other things. Hope you have a great Christmas and a lovely New year.
I wish I could double like this. cause you told time stamps in the beginning. I seriously appreciate that. Cause I normally just fast forward as much as possible without trying to miss anything
03:29 Anatolia was a region further east, and the name was given centuries later. The specific region at the time was called Ionia, as the expression "Ionian revolt" suggests. 24:44 The Greeks were trained levies (at least more trained than the Persians). Spartans were an exeption, they were a true standing army, as "professional" as you could get at the time. Regular training was widespread. The persian traditional sparabara formation of a spear/pavise frontline plus several raws of archers required less regular training than the greek traditional phalanx formation. A defensive shield wall requires a lot of regular training. An offensive shield wall, like the ones saw in Marathon, Thermopilae and Platea requires even more training. Several modern sources describe the greek infantry as "articulated", which suggests extensive individual and team training. And let's nor forget that after several months of preparations and 1-2 campaigns (characterised by a small death toll due to limited cavalry), a militiaman would know his drill. Therefore, in the next campaign he would be an already trained soldier. 27:53 Persian troop quantity was far superior than suggested. They certainly could draw from a pool of millions. The major problem was that they couldn't transport and support a large army in hostile territory, particularly the relatively poor mainland Greece. After a setback at sea (and Persians had several of those) the army would have to live off the land, and apart from limited local resources, risked to be submited to the well known tactic of scorched earth. As a result, the Persian army in Greece was an expeditionary force of selected troops, while Greek numbers at Platea (some 50 th.) was about all that the city states could muster. 28:12 Wars are won when one side gives up. At the time of Persian wars, the Greeks were not willing to do so. At the time of the Roman wars they were. Due to a lot of social, cultural and economic reasons, Greek states where at a cultural zenith, in what the historians describe as the golden age of classical Greece. When comon people believe in a purpose/ideal, they are willing to fight for it. Some centuries later, though Greek states became stronger than ever in paper strenght, popular beliefs were rather low in contrast with the Romans who had a rather easy time conquering everything.
According to the people reporting immediately after the battles, there were about a billion more airplanes shot down than were actually built in WW2, where we had pretty good records after. As we cross reference enemy records decades later, we find that it’s human nature to over count your enemy, and over count your victories. I’m not claiming anything is wrong with this, I just think we need to understand that “100,000 men probably means “more men than I could count before I ran terrified.” Or it meant “ the biggest army I could raise in the month I had to ride around asking “.
Actually, Herodotus (our only direct source, sadly) sets the Persian army at 2+ million people. A more accurate reconstruction says 10% of it, counting civilians following the army, women brought for Persian citizens, slaves and so on. We have no real reason to believe there were less than those numbers. Also remember, Attica at the beginning of 5th century had around 300.000 inhabitants.
@@nicolapodgornik6644 "A more accurate reconstruction" says absolutely nothing. It might not have been 2 million soldiers but until historians bring some evidence, 10% is just laughable.
@@nicolapodgornik6644 Unlike you, I have! I have studied ancient and modern historians and reconstruction is an idiotic term for idiots that cannot realise history outside modern standards.
@@thomasantipleb8512 well, my bad for not being an English native speaker then. In the language I'm studying ancient history in, we'd use the litteral translation of "reconstruction", and it would be accepted from an academic point. Linguistics aside, it's pretty likely that around 480 BC not 2M people, but rather 200~K people moved from Asia towards Greece, guided by Xerxes, that what modern historians widely agree. Do you accept it now or will you contradict something else not related with the historical side of my phrase? Oh, and I use "modern historian" simply not to say "everybody else but Herodotus". Care to elaborate more?
First of all, stop commenting if your knowledge on this is based on the movie 300 people. That was based on a comic book, not a history book. Second of all, i don't get it.. Greeks were citizen / hoplites. Persians were mercenaries. And some people in comments are trying to tell me Persians didn't have slaves, were a peacefull nation while greece (city-states back then, not a nation) was a nation of lazy bullies. Apart from Sparta who always acted in the opposite direction of Athens, i don't recall another army industry city. At least not until Philip II. If the Persian Empire had such a great impact on cities / subjects , how come the "Greek nation" was the one that produced democracy, a great marine trade, scientists, art, historians? Apart from Alexander who wanted to become "Great" and spread the "Greek Way" all around the world, which nation has had expanding intentions repeatedly throughout its timeline? Btw, i 'm not saying Greeks didn't have slaves. After all, slavery was not invented nor terminated at that time as we can all agree
Athenians were Ionians one of the main 4 Greek tribes. Spartans were Dorians like those of Macedon. The other were the Aelolians and the Achaeans. So made sense for Ionia in Anatolia to ask for help from the Athenians. And correction: It was Xerxes in the battle of Salamis. Also, the Athenians were the ones to drop the Persian down gorge and the comment of earth and water was in Greek was offensive basically telling the Persians to go get it yourself.
Your proof that Greek victory was not due to superior troops and equipment was to recite a list of instances where Greek troops prevailed over larger Persian ones? Having recently read Xenophons Hellenica, it was obvious to not only the Greeks but even the Thessalians that those capable of fielding Greek style armies had a clear and overwhelming advantage over the Persians
I think the efficacy of Greek tactics and equipment is proven by the March of the Ten Thousand and later by Alexander's combination of that with stellar cavalry tactics to completely dominate the Persians. That isn't to say other things weren't factors in any of these occurrences. Things like Themistocles' deception at the battle of Salamis and Xerxes killing of his Phoenician captains after the loss were major factors in the Greek victory in the Second Greco-Persian War. I think it would be hard to argue Greek equipment and tactics didn't do plenty of heavy lifting though.
@@vandur2322 Persias' elite forces were the Immortals, a group of 10.000 heavy armored infantry by the noble families of Persia, so no they werent Greek merceneries. If you try to apply that Persia had less well equipped soldiers that it true, cause you see in Greece every politis (citizen) was oplitis (hoplite) and his life was matter, in contrast with the Persian slave soldiers which were nothing more than walking meat fr the Persian tyrrant
I think the quality argument should be less about equipment and training (since as you said, there isnt a big difference there), but about moral. Basically the greeks all had similar cultures and were united by a common enemy, while persian soldiers were shipped around the world to fight in strange countries with men by their side that share neither language, nor culture.
There is also the fact that the Persians considered it a frontier war and were content with having accomplished the objectives they did accomplish for the most part. People often forget that the Persians won more battles, but as they said, it doesn't matter if you win all or most of the battles if you end up losing the war. At the same time, the Greeks were never a major threat to Persia, and the Persians wisely kept the Greeks fighting each other afterwards, which gave them a century where the Greeks were their own problem.
Not really-Thebes and other Greek cities allied with Persia. This wasn't a Greece vs Persia war-this was Athens and allies vs Persia and allies. The Persian war machine, just like the Romans and Macedonians, was big and multiethnic and usually worked. However, like those other two empires, it had limits on how far it could press it soldiers and where it could take them. Macedon stopped at India. Rome was stopped by the German forest, Sahara desert, Sudan and Iraq. Persia likewise couldn't go deep into India, south into Sudan, or into Greece.
SPQR modern multiculturalism works in creating pan-nationalism. That is, the creation of a new identity across ethnic lines. That’s what the progressives are fighting for in the West: the acceptance of other people groups to join their nationalities. And this is not some recent progressive, leftist rhetoric. In America, for example, this has been a thing since colonial times. English, Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Irish, and other European settlers in certain colonies called themselves Virginians, New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians, and other such names. Eventually, when the USA was born, they decided to bunch them all together as Americans, with that American identity later was developed further after the War of 1812. Later on, more peoples are added as Americans like the blacks, the Asians, the Hispanics, and the Natives. If you think Persian era multiculturalism is the same as modern-day multiculturalism, then clearly, oh mighty Rome, you truly have been living under a rock.
That book is garbage. Even the worst logistics of today far outdoes what Persia could have possibly achieved due to technological difference. I wouldn't trust that book if I were you.
You also neglected to mention that the "Persian troops" which supposedly "held their own" against the Greeks were actually Theban hoplites that were allied to Persia. The facts remain the same. Greek heavy infantry were just plain better than Persian troops.
Yeah he's trying to be a hipster with "special" opinion to stand out. Greek heavy infantry was simply better, its why Persians used also Greek mercenary hoplites against Macedon, cause their own infantry would have stood no chance at all.
@@teemuvesala9575 Oh please, Greek mercs were just a small fraction in the Achaemenid army since they're using various armies from different peoples, with ofc, different tactics.
@@SetuwoKecik They used Greek mercenaries specifically against Greeks. And the Greek mercenaries were the core infantry of the Persian army when they were deployed, because they were the best infantry they had. The only time they were not deployed in the center was when Persian commanders were unsure about their loyalties. All of this is clear evidence they saw Greek heavy infantry better than their own. But as usual with your kind, be free to ignore the reality.
The Romans also beat the Parthians and Sassanids many times. It was a rivalry that swung back and forth for several centuries and only ended when the Arabs literally came between them.
I agree very much. Without chaos, there can be no order, for we could not distinguish it. Who is to say had Mardonius not been killed at Plataea, that the Persian Army would have routed. Allegedly, he was spotted by a Greek soldier, who threw a stone at him, killing him. So here is some food for thought, what if the stone missed?
What if, indeed? Many years ago, my interest in Persian/Iranian history was triggered by a time-travel tale in an Uncle Scrooge comic, when I thought to myself, "Okay, I know about the Greeks, but just what was the Persian setup like anyway?" (Or musings to that effect.) That in turn invited a lifelong avidity for speculations in uchronics, or "alternate history". For a story set in a world where Greece was firmly leashed, Harry Turtledove (a grand master of the genre) produced a piece of short fiction entitled "Counting Potsherds", set around a century after Persian victory. 🤓
This is changing. Painfully slowly but its changing. It has always been the learning style that information is pushed onto kids by force and resistance to that force limits the learning capability. However, kids have prodigious capabilities for learning. By making the learning process interesting, the amount of information, and more importantly, comprehension of that information can be increased... well, no one really knows but possibly multiplied by two or maybe much more. And it is not some hype supertechnique, its what could and should be normal, describing only how failed traditional school systems are.
Yeah, schools don't have time to teach history--they are too busy teaching the kids how to use rubbers, and how to blame capitalism for climate change, and how to decide for themselves what gender they are (all while feeling good about themselves).
@@gregb6469 As a socialist who went through the American school system in liberal New York, no that was not the case at ALL. Climate change was barely touched upon, and only then discussed rising CO2 levels. And LGBT+ issues were something I fully had to discover and learn on my own; it was myself who pushed for, and got, a gender-neutral restroom at the school I went to. And for the record, I was a conservative during high school.
Fun fact: The Persians called all Greeks, "Ionians" despite them not being Ionians. Macedonians however was loosely translated by the Persians as "Ionians with big circled hats". Also, the Greco-Persian wars were some of the most intense wars on both sides, and the common misconception is that the Greeks won a decisive war. What really happened was that the Persians were extremely close to winning, however the passage that lead to Peloponnesia was were the Persian campaign ended with a decisive Greek victory. However, the Persian were extremely close to conquering the Hellenic/Corinthian League and even had plundered Athens with little resistance. And another fact: 300 lied about the Persians mobilizing up to a million men, it was more accurately and roughly around 100 k-250 k soldiers from across the empire, and not to forget that the Persian king (Xerxes) at Thermopylae had quite a smart idea.
@@filmmanmel Greeks weren’t a country back then , Athenians decided to leave but others mainly Spartans to fight. Athens was planning to immigrate to Italy since they already immigrated on an island, I k iq it sounds stupid but sissily was mainly Greek and Athens was pretty small with many ships
Your fun fact is actually false fact. Macedonia in persian translated to Maghdonieh and Persians knew Alexander as Alexander of Macedonia. And since there wasn't any Greece at the time so other nations as Sparta, Ionians etc were known by their ethnicity groups name. Where do you get your facts from? After Greece was invented by West then Persians used "Yonan" derived from old Persian word of Ionians as the name for calling Greece.
@@PanosPitsi I know vre malaka, i know that sicily was mainly greek. Also they weren't going to leave Greece unless it was completely lost to the persians, the athenians played a crucial role in defending against the persians maybe more so than the spartans. Marathon, salamis, these were both victories for the greeks thanks to the athenians.
Don't forget that beefs can run 100 or even 150 years & not forgotten back then, time moved slowwww. Herodotus said the first beef was when one of their Princesses was kidnapped while shopping (yes shopping) at the harbor by Phoenician merchants. After years of back & forth Persia wouldn't pay up. Yes keep the chick but pay us, lol. The Phoenicians became so nervous they dumped the chicks off in Egypt but still no go for the Greeks. Persians had a credit default in ancient terms in Greek eyes. A whole list of crap built up between these 2 before boom all out war.
I mean while he says that he definitely just made that up to make it seem like the Persians started it. Like that's literally lifted out of the Iliad so I'm gonna say it's a fabrication.
Lets not forget that the greeks were fighting for their land, families and survival. That's like plus 100 morale and the persian empire's troops were a mixture of many different tribes, fighting an offensive war for a king they had probably never seen thats minus 30 morale
Not really. Greeks were slave owners and their settlers included many non Greek slaves too. This is when first line of Persian army was Greek mercenaries who were fighting for money or hated Athens. They fought each other for long years. Both were morals and couraged. Greeks were behind many messing ups in persian territory and they didn't like it
@@immortal5563 would you die for a month's payment? would you die to protect your family and or your property? my comment was about why the greek army morale should have been better than the persian army morale
@@kapoioskanenas2337 and that's not correct, it is 300 movie logic 😂😂 In morality Persians builded their empire without using a single one slave when this shameful culture existed in Greece until Muslim Conquest of Constantinople in 1453. If Greeks fought for their freedom and their lands then why dozens of Greeks joined Persian army against their own country fellows?
It is so simple. The Greek warriors were free citizens. Greeks had education, they had values and ideals, martial virtue ,they were trained, gymnastics and sports were a main subject in public education , better equipped, they fought for their country. They had excellent organization and discipline, obedience to their leaders and trust in their Gods. They believed in the immortality of the soul and they had confidence in their city that after death it would pay tribute to them and glory and amenities to their family.
Greek society was based on militarism: the power of the state was based in a society that was focused on military doctrine and training. Persian society was based on commerce, particularly the taxing of caravans going to and fro through Persian lands along the trade routes to Egyptian grain, Chinese silks and spices, Indian gemstones, Eurasian furs and timber. As a result, Persian armies were basically mercenaries with little loyalty to the state aside from their pay. This explains the poor performance of their armies. The minute the battle begins to look like it's not going well, the mercenary begins to think he won't be getting paid after all: why die for that? But the Greek armies had a military doctrine that was trained to think of the state from birth. Patriotism made the soldier consider the power of the state along with whether the battle was going well, and believe in the cause of his commanders, not just whether he was going to survive the battle. Persia = power of the state through gold Alexanders Greece = power of the state through militarism
I suspect another consideration worth mentioning, is that Greece was just another place of foreign contention to Xerxes, who had his hands full with a variety of other distant sectors of the empire to manage and maintain. It wasn't his only or perhaps even a very high, area to devote time and resources to. His return to Persia after completing the majority of his "check-list" and leaving Mardonius behind for 'clean-up', I suspect lends weight to this. Greeks pulled off some amazing feats, to be sure but they weren't the only ones Xerxes had to deal with.
Picture Greece as a great chamber upon which the piston of Persia is pushing downwards. One can imagine that as the piston pushes further and further into the chamber, the peoples, within it become more and more cohesive, just as pressure would mount. In a scenario like this either the piston is strong enough to push the material into a solid state - imagine crushing sand into sandstone - or it is not and the forces equalize at a certain point wherein the piston can go no further, and we could go as far as saying that such a point was the battle of Plateia. Under this however simplsitic view of things one can nonetheless clearly say that the equilibrium of forces was reached and that no gains by any part could be advanced. As with similiar systems in nature - the resources necessary to achieve a breakthrough and crush in absolute resitance would prove exponential to the rather linear needs of the defenders and as such, no more effort was made into the conquest of the remainder of Greece. Aye, we could say it was a Persian sucess as much as it was a Greek success - since that is what balance implies.
Thank you for this. A very nice summation of the Great-Achaemenid Wars. Personally, had I lived back then I would rather have lived in the Achaemenid Empire than Greece. From what I've read the Greek city-states could be nasty places. Even Athens murdered Socrates. The Achaemenids were less so, and had all the advantages of a proper empire.
It would be a mixed bag on both sides. On one had Greece had democracy and better education. On the other the Persian had outlawed slavery and had marginally better women rights. So I guess if I was a rich man I would prefer Grecce but if I was a woman or really poor I would prefer persia
![Battle of Plataea (479 BC)⚔️Fight for the Fate of Greece [Day 1-10] DOCUMENTARY](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gHy9pYHSTXo/mqdefault.jpg)
![Battle of Plataea (479 BC)⚔️Fight for the Fate of Greece [Day 1-10] DOCUMENTARY](/img/tr.png)
Check out our latest episode on the history of Roman Fast Food: th-cam.com/video/v5Qz00eUF5Q/w-d-xo.html
F****** hell.
This is golden.
I Suggest you to Study more Detail of Greece History!! Becouse its full off Brainwashed Story and Thoose Credit Go for Albanians Tribes (Antienc one i mean) . Dude Even the (So Called Anticity Books if their own, Like Herodotus Ptolemy Tukiditi etc etc Agree with One Term) Greeks are different From Other Tribes they Lived !! 😉
The True Descendants of Bryge, Labeates, Ilyrian, Pelasgians are Today (Albanian People) I have Fact's about this that Greece Country and other Country (Skllavs) Keep Hidden from the Truth.
Thnx if you Pay some Serious Attention to my Comment. 😉
@@elbasanalbania How about, no.
@@RonaldTrumpOfficial Then you Deside to Stay Brainwashed. Don't worry Soon everything will come to Light. Greek Bullshet will end Soon. 😉😉
Not many admit to how luck and fate play such an important part in all our lives! Great video and history break down bar none!
The Greek: Ok lets put our differences aside and face a common enemy.
After the win: Ok lets get back to hating each other.
Spot on, the Greek way..
The joke only works if they stopped disliking each other while they were fighting a common enemy. It also only works if they actually did get together and decide to fight a common enemy (which they didn't, not really) It also only works if they have a common enemy. The Persians were there largely for the Athenians, and everyone else knew this. This is why half of Greece sided with the Persians, many of whom fought against the rest at Plataea and other battles.The southern Greeks, who were the anti-Persian group of states, were not united in a common goal. Many of them wanted to build a wall across the Pellopanese and wait the whole thing out (after Athens burned, and the Athenians retreated) The Athenians effectively exhorted them into the battle of Plataea. (not all together unlike the battle of Salamis, supposedly) All the while they still hated each other. Meanwhile everyone is waiting for the Spartans to stop waiting for the gods to give them a sign. GOOD JOKE.
Dayz 3O6 Balkans on a nutshell after winning against Ottomans
Tfw Rome gives Greek independence and they IMMEDIATELY fall into civil war. ,
😂
The Americans: "Ok China is getting out of hand, human rights violations, HK protests, copyright law etc. Lets put our differences aside and curb their influence"
2 months later "so about that impeachment"
The fact that a nation could organize and mobilize an army of around 100.000 people back then is amazing.
that's why the Greek victory is great, because the opponent was great
It was 1 million soldiers and 1 million civilians in that army, but most modern historians tend to underestimate ancient peoples and sources, even though Herodotus is proven right again and again.
@@real_orestis_georgiou Yeah. Herodetus also said that the Scythians fought one eyed crazy bogeymen. How exactly could the Persians get 100000 soldiers? Out of their a***es?
@@owaisqureshi4576 The Persians had a vast empire and the most populous regions of earth. They demanded soldiers from all the peoples in their empire and back then almost all men were warriors, not like now. The reason many modern historians disbelief is that they doubt they could sustain such great forces. But the Persians were very sophisticated, contrary to modern disbelief.
Historians also believed that the canal on mount Athos was a myth, until it was proven with modern technology that it exists beneath the ground.
The Persians could have used the Dagger of Time.
It is interesting to note, on the topic of killing the envoys, that Spartans felt that they had committed a most heinous act of blasphemy by killing the envoys: For them who prided themselves on their piousness, every envoy was under the personal protection of one of their gods, IIRC it might be Hermes but I am not certain, it did not matter from which country the envoy was or how insolent or outrageous his demands were, every envoy was protected by Hermes himself.
Realizing what they had done, the Spartans sent two volunteers and tons of gifts to the court of the Persian king. Those two volunteers were supposed to die there as an atonement for the two envoys that had been murdered in Sparta. Yet the Persian king in his clemency forgave them and sent them home, loaded with gifts.
It is remarkable that this account is not Persian propaganda but from the Spartans themselves.
"It is remarkable that this account is not Persian propaganda but from the Spartans themselves."
lmao you're right. that is hilarious.
Hermes sucks at protecting people that is lesson here
Spartans, like Athenians, killed the envoys in the process of declaring an all out war to the very bitter end. But it seems that, as usual in Greek states back then, various other "voices of reason" prevailed and they changed their mind trying to appease the Persian king. Persians also grabbed the opportunity to show clemency and that their conquest would be a civilised one, not one of annihilation.
Spartans had better relations with Persians cause they hated Athenians.
@@dinos9607 keep coping.
The thing that impresses me the most about the whole affair is how unlikely it was that the greeks won . It's one of those textbook examples of how overwhelming force does not always equate victory. The persian doctrine of ruthless punishment or forgiving diplomacy is also masterful. It makes sense that they lasted so long with such a strong system of governance and war doctrine. Their adaptation to the greek victory by subsequently undermining them diplomatically is also brilliant. This is why I love antiquity. It was so incredibly rich in fantastic characters and almost fictional stories! I wish I had a time machine to go back and see how it all actually happened
Well, if u live at that time, and these things happen in like 100 miles away from where u live, you'd probably hear it days or months after it happens.. Anyway, if your just a regular joe during that time, you'd probably hear it through 3rd hand accounts.. And its not probably presented in a manner like this.. and you wont have the internet to check what really happened or how it happened and all that.. Besides, being a peasant, u probably wont know how to read
@@death2denemy lol hence time machine. I'm perfectly happy being born in the information age. But i would love the ability to go back and get a first hand account of events. Wouldn't want to live back then. Antiquity has nothing on the internet, space travel, or wikipedia even.
@@edmundmanuel9304 Yeah. Along with your time machine you want to have a space ship with a giant zoom lens so you can sit back in a comfy chair with a beverage of your choice and some pop corn while watching the Ancients kill each other.
That and tiny little spy bots you could teleport into the Royal Chambers and listen (well of course you'd have a universal translator (!!!)) to what they said.
.
@@BobSmith-dk8nw i was thinking more wonder woman invisible jet. Space ship is a bit too far from the action. Plus im pretty sure the thing never runs out of gas and can hover XD
@@edmundmanuel9304 Eh .... don't forget I said "giant zoom lens" but ... sure ... hovering invisible jet works. Besides - Wonder Woman is an Amazon ... so ... she'd fit right in. Her and Xena.
.
The Greeks had more chiseled abs.
in contrast the Persian had better lower trapezius
The Greeks fought better in the shade
Persians had the most glorious beards
@@emperorclaudias3316 You could say that about the Spartans though. The Spartans were famous among the Greeks for having big beards.
Sprayed on chiseled abs.
I’d like to mention the moral factor, the Greeks were fighting what they perceived as, a war of survival, so they were more motivated to win than a collection of troops gather across the Persian empire, who were sent to Greece to ensure the power of the king, seems like the Greeks had more to fight for
No, the wars started because The Empire(Which is what Achaemenid means)had banned slavery and the ionian greeks hated this since it meant that people had freedom.
@@DaDARKPass it literally said that they placed dictators to rule those areas.
Also im pretty sure the Persians had slaves.
@@philip2009 Nope, the Achaemenid empire banned slavery.
@@DaDARKPass yeah, but they still had prisoners of war as slaves.
Also a side note: the pathians and sassanids had many slaves.
Young Adventurer This is a factor that cannot be underestimated. You are fighting for your world and your family and way of life. I would not have any desire to fight an angry Greek with his back to a mountain regardless or his armor for this reason.
Random chance is a real thing when you consider the fact that the Yuan invasion over Japan got screwed by a storm that happens in both invasion.
The twin typhoons that thwarted invasions of Japan are an incredible example of this
Or Napoleonic invasion of Russia
@@swagatochatterjee7104 correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that was due to Russia exploiting their massive land (and Napoleon's insufficient knowledge of it) to delay and starve the Napoleon army _until_ winter? If so, that's not really "random", isn't it?
@@swagatochatterjee7104 its not really random as winters in Russia were always very cold. If you're under big threath like France, wouldn't you use your extreme weather for defence and later on as offence?
The "protestant wind" that wrecked the Spanish Armada is a similar stroke of luck.
Athen: We control Greece!
Sparta: *“Do you feel in charge?“*
funny thing is, when Alexander the Macedonian attacked Persia, the Greek supported the latter more than him! at first at least anyway ... and Alexander loved Cyrus the Great of Persia's leadership style ... he wanted to be like him ... he even had some support inside Persia because the Persian Achamenid regime was declining rapidly due to political corruption in the court ...
@dergerät most historical records show that the Achamenids were already a corrupt regime! it's how human nature and absolute power works, anywhere in any culture ... empires are not built to last really! they bring profits as long as they are in power and they still bring more profits to whomever built them when the latter destroys empires!
@pericles yes that's what he's called in history as some others are called, like Cyrus The Great of Persia and so on ... but i don't quite get why you said that? what did i mean where?
I mean to this day the greatest empires in europe fell cause of internal conflicts due to usurpers weakening region control andarmy forces, leaving the empires undefended against enemies all over (macedonian empire, roman empire examples)
Haha Ive read this with Bane's voice
Of course, there is not a simple quality/quantity answer. Did the Persians outnumber the Greeks? Yes, it's almost sure and most of military historians agree. Did the Greeks have a better armor? Yes, even if the Persian heavy cavalry was well armored, most of their infantry was light armored.
But it does not mean that the Persian army was a low-quality army. It was incredibly successful in Asia and also out of his homeland, even if most of the people don't know.
The point is that each army has a very different military system. The farmer-based phalanx of Greek warfare proved superior, at least (and just) at winning battles. The Persians had a very good army, well designed for mantaining his empire and for defeating other near-easter armies and kingdoms, but that system was not prepared for a struggle against a citizen phalanx.
It is not a matter of quality, but of context.
Persians used greek heavy merchs infantry and other heavy infantry
@@Paws.of.Justice Yes, it's true. It was very common, specially after the Cunaxa campaing, which proved Greek hoplites as a reliable force and the Peloponnesian War, which left lost of Greek mercenaries out of a job. The Persians understood that the Greek phalanx was stronger in combat than their typical infantry, specially against other Greeks, an tried to use them massively against Alexander.
Heavy armor does not equal being better. Heavy and light armoured troops both had their own pros and cons, with both being usually used with different tactics.
Also, there's a common theme around warfare throughout human history: a large multinational army failing against an army defending what's perceived as their homeland and on their back.
As the video, quite what skillfully demonstrates, what was as huge victory for Greece and a huge landmark on their history, was a somewhat minor setback on Persian history at that time.
Didn't roman break the phalanx ?
The battle of Salamis was decided long before the first Greek oar struck water. How? Themistocles had been successful in keeping the Persian Navy awake all night waiting for the Greek navy to try and escape. He did this by using the persian's habit of relying on traitors to gain the upper hand. Themistocles sent a man he trusted to tell Xerxes that the Greeks were fractured and fearful, that the Greek Navy planned to slip out of port that night and escape. Xerxes kept his navy at their posts all night waiting for the Great Escape. Themistocles on the other hand told his sailors & marines to get a good nights sleep. So they awoke the next morning bright eyed & bushy tailed while the Persians were exhausted.
according to tradition
@@iceintheair There is no 'tradition' when written by historians of the time... and it was a Greek historian (Herodotus) because there could not be a Persian historian knowing of these matters so close to Greece.
@@IonidisIX reee
@@IonidisIX That is the tradition, modern history uses more than just written sources.
Subterfuge is one element he did not talk about.
Obviously it's because the persians pecs weren't as chiseled as the manly Spartans
Because the Persians failed to kick guys into wells while introducing them to the locale.
The Virgin Persians vs. the Chad Spartans.
@@SebAnders well at least the persians didnt poison their own water supplies in greetings lol
@@SebAnders although it is pretty epic to show your dominance by flexing pecs and kicking people down wells as a greeting. "Hello from athens" BLAM.
@Art of Letting go Honestly can't tell if your joking or being serious. Your last sentence is so ridiculous I think your joking if not get medical and mental help.
24:12 "And it wouldn't be until Alexander the Great that hellenistic armies truly perfected the combined arms approach to warfare".... what you should say its "until Phillip of Macedon", he is the one that revolutionized the hellenistic armies..... Alexander inherited that army and went to conquer but his daddy built it first.
Good point, but it was indeed Alexander that brought it to perfection. Phillip was the one that started it but Alexander took that and with his skills and knowledge led his armies all the way to India. That is why he is known as the greatest military commander to date.
@@ProedrosMeOnoma In a way you are right but I wouldn’t give Alexander 100% of the credit in regards to how good his army was. And the reason I say this it’s because Alexander not only inherited a fully professional army but he also inherited Phillip’s Generals who were amazing at what they do. You had the likes of Seleucus, Antipater, Ptolemy (who later build an empire in Egypt), Eumenes (For me the best of Alexander’s Generals), Antigonus (Brilliant strategist, almost as good as Eumenes. So it’s not like Alexander did it all by himself, he had the best generals you could possibly imagine having at your side and then the professional army. It was a combination of things, I’ll give Alexander 75% of the credit for everything he conquered, the other 25% goes to his brilliant generals and the troops he inherited from his father. But that’s my opinion, I could be wrong.
@@fgrodriguezqac that's absolutely true but it's true for every army commander. Alexander, Xerxes, Napoleon, everyone had and still have their generals and depended on them for success. Maybe the most brilliant military mind, found the most brilliant generals in this case.
15 years of fighting. Zero battle loses.
@@fgrodriguezqac Were do we see the evidence that Philip's or Alexander's generals were amazing? Philip had sent Parmenio in Asia with 10'000 men before his assassiation, whered he accomplished precisely nothing. Antipater, who was left by Alexander as the viceroy in Europe, could not bring down the Spartan revolut until Alexander sent him funds to ensure he had massive numerical superiority and was beaten again during the outbreak of the Lamian war and had to be saved by Craterus brining reinforcements from Asia. Craterus himself was beaten by Eumenes, a secretary. Antigonus the One-Eyed and his son Demtrius failed in their expedition against some Arab tribes in Yemen. Lysimachus was beaten by the Dacians. Seleucus had to concede lands to Chandragupta Maurya. These guys all made their names on the backs of either Philip or Alexander.
Persian, Mongol, Spanish: Naval Invasion!
Storm: I am going to end this man's career.
English too: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cartagena_de_Indias, storm was an excuse, the defense was too great in each case.
Storm didn’t exist in marathon nor in Thermopylae only blood and corpses
@@ghostofathens6600 they didn't have storm they had the full x men pmsl
Mongol naval invasion?
@@cesaru3619
As anyone who ever played the 90s game Pirates! will tell you, the city of Cartagena is a bitch to attack!!
Even in the 16th century, there was a well equipped fort guarding the port and the only way to approach the port was to sail eastwards, against the prevailing westerly winds. That means that you're travelling at a snail's pace, tacking back and forth under the withering fire of the cannons from the forts, never finding a beam reach, always having to either close haul or close reach. Never finding a beam reach means you never get to respond to the fort with a broadside.
Cartagena was built to be a deathtrap to aggressors.
The few major reasons Persia lost in the end were:
1) the Persian army was designed to fight in open field using its Calvary and the Greek army was built to fight on its homeland which was rocky and mountainous.
2) the Persian army drew upon many different nationalities so it had a communication problem while the Greeks all spoke a similar language.
3) maintaining and feeding an invading army over a long distance is still a logistical problem till this day .
That is what hurt Persia
But the Persians lost at Issus and Gaugamela. Probably not at as rocky or mountainous as in Greece, nor far from Persian Homeland, yet far from Greece. The forces of Greece probably didn't all speak ONE language, but similar dialects, but i would concede this last point. Which again brings up the chaotic-chance-theory.
@@tommeinhold7190 those are a different time period and under different leadership. The Greeks win in Persia because they had arguably the greatest general leading them at that time in Alexander .
also Greek warriors were more experienced and better tactics probs
@@cant_handle_deeznuts Quite the opposite, and that type of thinking is why videos like this need to be made. The Athenian writers who we take most of our firsthand knowledge of the period from commonly complained about how most Greeks never trained for war. The Spartans only stood out because they did, and their phalanxes wouldn't drift as others were known to do. The Persians on the other hand maintained a standing army, and hired a lot of mercenaries that included Greeks as well as those like Phoenicians who fought "in the Greek style."
@@kongming66 why would Greek mercenaries fight against their own, possibly destroying their culture if they won
seems kinda stupid to me
24:44 replace "untrained levies" with "Citizen Militia".
The Greeks were not untrained, rather they worked as any conscript army: they lived regular lives, but were trained to fight in wars should they arise. They weren't professional soldiers, but they weren't untrained either.
Yeah this was definitely something that got messed up in the creation of the graphics. The script more accurately talks about levies with infrequent training as would be expected from militias.
The state does not publicly train for war.--Xenophon, Memorabilia 3.12.5
Although we're happy to go to war with just about everyone, we do not train ourselves for it.--Isokrates 8.44
No such group training or competition now exists in any city-state at all, except maybe in a very small way.--Plato Laws 831b
@@ParallelPain Which is likely the difference between agrarian familial groups and neighbors training together as a matter of custom and necessity rather than state organized annual training involving hundreds or thousands of people. Additionally summer warfare between Greek states was so common and losses generally so minimal that it virtually guaranteed that much of a Greek fighting formation would be comprised of veterans anyway; regular seasonal warfare is training of it's own. Xenophon as you clearly understand is likely making this statement with the Persians in mind for comparison. (who do maintain a version of a standing army within their greater decentralized levy system)
@@Dadecorban Xenophon was making the comparison to the Spartans, who did publicly train for war, not Persians.
This kind of "summer neighborhood camp" is completely conjecture with no support in the written sources. In fact, the sources tell us that in general, Greeks prefer not to train at all and in fact resisted training.
Herodotus tells of when an admiral tried to train the Ionians who revolted against Persia, Book 6.11-12:
----
For seven days they obeyed him and did his bidding; but on the next day, untried as they were in such labor and worn out by hard work and by the sun, the Ionians began to say each to other: “Against what god have we sinned that we have to fulfill this task? We have lost our minds and launched out into folly, committing ourselves into the hands of this Phocaean braggart, who brings but three ships; and having got us he afflicts us with afflictions incurable. Many of us have fallen sick already, and many are likely to suffer the same thing; instead of these ills, it would be better for us to suffer anything, and endure this coming slavery, whatever it will be, rather than be oppressed by that which is now upon us. Come, let us obey him no longer!” So they spoke, and from then on no man would obey. As if they were an army, they raised tents on the island where they stayed in the shade, and they were unwilling to embark upon their ships or to continue their exercises.
---
After only a week of training, the Ionians say they'd rather lose to the Persians than train any longer.
Thucydides has Pericles praise the Athenians and mock Spartan training in his funeral oration by saying the untrained Athenians are just as brave as the harshly trained Spartans, Book 2.39:
----
If we turn to our military policy, there also we differ from antagonists. We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens; while in education, where our rivals from their very cradles by a painful discipline seek after manliness, at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger.
----
Note Thucydides also described the Athenians botching a seemingly simple right wheel at Amphipolis (Book 5.10) compared to the Spartans at Mantinea whom is described as forming up for battle incredibly quickly and orderly (Book 5.66), and who advanced to the sound from flute-players to prevent breaking order that other armies do when engaging (Book 5.70).
Xenophon also have Socrates complain to Pericles that the Athenians in general not only did not train, they mocked the few who did, Memorabilia, Book 3.5:
----
When will they adopt the Lacedaemonian system of training, seeing that they not only neglect to make themselves fit, but mock at those who take the trouble to do so?
----
Xenophon also have Socrates, like Herodotus about the Ionians, talk about how the Athenian army is insubordinate to the officers (contrasting them to the fleet) also Memorabilia, Book 3.5:
----
Ah yes, and strange indeed it is that such men submit themselves to their masters, and yet the infantry and cavalry, who are supposed to be the pick of the citizens for good character, are the most insubordinate.
----
Plato, likewise, talk about how Athenians mock people who did train. First Laws 830b to 830d, talking about how trainers not willing to make some very sensible training regimens
----
and if we chanced to be very short of training-mates, do you suppose that we should be deterred by fear of the laughter of fools from hanging up a lifeless dummy and practicing on it? Indeed, if ever we were in a desert, and without either live or lifeless training-mates, would we not have recourse to shadow-fighting of the most literal kind, against ourselves? Or what else should one call the practice of pugilistic posturing? And so is their lawgiver, through fear lest these training-bouts may appear ridiculous to some, to refrain from laying down laws whereby he will ordain field-operations
----
Plato then goes on to describe his ideal training regimens, then state in no uncertain terms such regimen does not currently exist in any state, except to a very small extent (Laws 831b).
Plato, having first put the advantages of training to fight in arms and armour into the mouth of Nicias, also put into the mouth of Laches, that Athenians thought there's no need, *as the Spartans do not* (Laches 182e-183a):
----
I speak of it in this way from the following point of view: I conceive that if there were anything in it, it would not have been overlooked by the Lacedaemonians, whose only concern in life is to seek out and practise whatever study or pursuit will give them an advantage over others in war.
----
Laches also saying none of these trainers have distinguished themselves in war, and have not become famous for their training (Laches 183c):
----
Indeed, we can estimate it offhand: for, as though it were of set purpose, not one of these experts in arms has ever yet distinguished himself in war. And yet in all the other arts, the men who have made a name are to be found among those who have specially pursued one or other of them; while these persons, apparently, stand out from the rest in this particularly hapless fate of their profession.
----
And, after telling the story of Stesilaus who was so mocked, that the Athenians mock those who did (Laches 184a-184c):
----
For indeed I hold that if a man who was a coward believed that he possessed it, his only gain would be in rashness, which would make his true nature the more conspicuous; while if he were brave, people would be on the look-out for even the slightest mistake on his part, and he would incur much grievous slander; for the pretension to such skill arouses jealousy, so that unless a man be prodigiously superior to the rest in valor he cannot by any means escape being made a laughing-stock through professing to be so skilled.
----
While it might seem strange to us, evidence point to that the Greeks believe that fighting as heavy infantry to be a matter of courage, instead of skill. Going back to what Pericles (Thucydides) said, this seem to be shared even by the people who was pushing for training. Xenophon in Cyropaedia has his hero Cyrus the Great rearm his peltasts and bowmen as heavy infantry (armour, shield, and scimitar or sabre in particular). The Persian commoners rejoiced at this. In Cyropaedia Book 2.3, Xenophon has of a certain Pheraulas describe how fighting in close quarters are actually instinctual, like from animals, even with swords. Pheraulas continues:
----
For this was not only instinctive, like walking and running, but I thought it was fun in addition to its being natural. Be that as it may,” he went on, “since this method of fighting awaits us, which demands courage more than skill, why should we not gladly compete with the peers here?”
----
This is also in line with Plutarch's likely apocryphal story in Moralia 233 that says the Spartans "appointed no trainers to instruct in wrestling so that the rivalry might be not in skill, but in courage". And it is in line with what Aristotle wrote in Politics 1338b of both Athenians and Spartans, by which time the Athenians had state-paid training as well:
----
Now at the present time some of the states reputed to pay the greatest attention to children produce in them an athletic habit to the detriment of their bodily form and growth, while the Spartans although they have avoided this error yet make their boys animal in nature by their laborious exercises, in the belief that this is most contributory to manly courage.
----
So the evidence here is that there were in fact private, ad-hoc training. But this training is not some type of neighbourhood farmer association, but of the rich and leisurely who had time and money to hire trainers. And indeed, even among the rich and leisurely, training seem to be rare. Memoralia 3.12, quoted before, is Xenophon writing of Socrates telling one of his students/companions that though the state do not train, he was out of shape and should train. Likewise Plato in Republic, Book 4.422 compares the wealthy to fat rich men, or men who have more skill and practice in boxing than war (note this also implies Plato thinks the usual training of the day don't help in war, and the rich didn't train much in war either). Even among learned experts, the common believe was that phalanx fighting rested not in skill, but in courage. Experts believed training made people more courageous, while common people prided themselves on their natural courage and mocked the skills of those among them who trained.
Other reason for this lack of training was stated by Xenophon in Poroi. In chapter 1, Xenophon says that the Athenian leaders said that “owing to the poverty of the masses, we are forced to be somewhat unjust in our treatment of the cities.” In chapter 2, Xenophon suggest that they should relieve non-citizens of the obligation to serve in the infantry, as "it is no small thing to leave their trades and their private affairs", a burden that in all likelihood is shared by the citizens. In chapter 4, after outlining changes to slave labour and silver mining "in order that every Athenian may receive sufficient maintenance at the public expense" Xenophon states that, those who trained for torch races, who did garrison duty, who served as peltasts, and who patrolled the land did so voluntarily, and so did not take things seriously. The implication here is also only those rich enough to volunteer their time did these things, contrasting with Aristotle’s times when the state paid for the training.
@@ParallelPain None of the quotes you mentioned directly contradicts the theme of militia training;
For the Ionians and the battle of Lade, the mention is for the crews and indeed the majority of rowers were untrained .Which navy ever had trained rowers? except maybe Athens?
For Xenophon quotes ; He was a reknown friend of Sparta and everything you quoted is a comparison of his between Athens and Sparta. So we must see his views under that prism.
For the nature of the brutal hoiplite warfare the qiotes were right ,it was a matter of courage rather than skill. For you could not block or parry the blows just accept that you would get hit unless your side would crush the opposoing side quickly.
More spesifically :
1 & 2 refer to the rowers of battle of Lade. Irrelevant to the subject at hand , IMHO which is the notion that citizen phlanxes at the time were experienced.
3 talks about generally way of life and not spesifically battle and war.
4 For any luck of performance of Athenian infantry we have the opposite performance at marathon , at the battles before the persian invasion against the Thebans ,the supreme performance at the second battle at thermopylae agaisnt the gauls and so on.
5& 6 It is implied that the general population did not trained -as we say- but few did. Thats is a generalization. Today USA does not have training for all male population. So according to your logic ,US Marines are untrained?
7&8 Insubordination to high command as we define it today was a key thing of greek culture regardless of training or not. It is a culture thing and what define western way of war versus the autocratic military systems of the East.
The general did not have a tabula rasa for the lifes of his men. But he was obliged to explain to them his actions.
Failing to fullfill their expectations had dire consequences. Macedon's army was almost a separate political body that gave authority to the king. Spartan Amomfaretus denied Pausanias before battle of Platea. The spartan Omoioi will force Kleomvrotos to attack the Thebans at Leuctra. Saying that greeks of the time did not blindly followed orders = untrained is a gross misconception and shows lack of knowledge of greek way of governing themselves.
Rest of your quotes are generic. It compare system of governance between sparta and Athens. While Sparta had entire male population under arms for decades while Athens did not . Athens is like USA of today. Had a proffesional core of soldiers which would be supplamanted in time of dire crisis with militia.
Athens was at war from early 500 bs untill /and gallic invasion. Every 10 years was a war. taking into consideration the manpower of the city and the noumerous corps it put onto the field basically at times entire athenian population were at arms.
Athenians had a standing army of the Logades , political remnant of archaic/mycenean times. these were the rich the nobility. Except these they at least had a permanent auxilia cavalry horse archer formation comprised by scythinas and rich athenians. They had auxilia police made by thracians and they also had permanent crews that maintained the triremes. After a point they had an obligatory two year service.
Aristoi of Thebes also were a permanent body ,which pelopidas later will make into as Sacrd band. But they existed before hand they did not figh as one unit rather than dispersed.
Macedon had the Companions which were permanet aswell. Thessaly aswell had permanet corps. except if we think that raw recruit cavalrymen can use diamond formation with brutal effectiveness. Or recruit cavalry charging head on and winning a spartan phalanx (during athenian coup)
Arcadians had "Eparitoi" numered at 5k. Achaian federation had standing army aswell.
The battles of ancient greeks tell us if they had training or not; At Crimisos river Timoleon could only rely on his " volunteered elite" corinthian infantry. The term directly to me equals the permanent nobility of corinth ,probably some type of Epilektoi. They faced at extreme numerical disadvantage the whole carthaginian army and its famous fully proffesional sacred band. Fighting below waist inside the river under heavy storm and rain in phalanx formation against the carthaginian phalanx. Which was so afraid of their "pushing" that according to ancient sources they had chained themselves one to another. The result was the complete anihillation of the carthaginian sacred band. No raw recruits could do that excpet a veteran elite corps.
Also note that the greeks failed to break the sacred band with spears and resorted to swordfighting....
In the gallic invasion of 279bc the athenians send their Epilektoi at thermopylae and they faced the elite gaulish warriors that were in arms in lower balcans for decades. The gauls failed again and again to break the phlanx and bypassed the narrow point instead of winning against the massed greek infantry.
I can bring examples of military feats of recorded ancient greek formations that are impossible to be done except they were comprised by elite troops.
The mercenaries of darius at Issus ?That penetrated the best pike phalanx ever? The aitolian cavalry that bested the macedon companions at first roman macedonian war? The spartan phalanx at coroneia that opened their ranks to avoid the onslaught of the theban juggernaught? The constanty recorded testimonies of greek formations chaging facing sides in battle? Cunaxa? Thates river? coroneia?
How a raw recruit corps at marathon was able to give ground while its flanks destroy the elite permanent persian infantry and then stop giving chase , but reunite in one body and fell into its ranks ? There is scarcelly any other reecord in history concerning infantry formation achieving that.
The armour of the elites ,mainly the muscular broze cuirass ,the closed helmets ,the greaves ,the bronze renneforced shield the sword and the heavy spear are impossible to be worn , carried over for hours , and then used under greek sun and summer temps for any human indivindual unless that indivindual had bigger muscles and body structure. Any college student that tried to wore the full panoply for more than 15 mins was exhausted. The greeks were doing that for hours under 40-45 degrees celsius inside the dust and in intense psychological stress. yet all these men were untrained militias.
Side note and I close , many of the misconceptions about modern interprentations of phalanx warfare are originated from the inability of the renactors/students etc to wear the full panoply.
"Ok we cannot breath here inside the panoply for long ,so the greeks did not fough for hours but rather charged and hit with spears at full spear range. None ancient author mentions it , but hey it is impossible for me to stay consius so this must have been happened"
"These spear tips are coming directly at me and i cannot doidge or block. this is wrong ,obvioulsy something else happened."
" Othismos? Pushing against the enemy formation? Are you crazy ? the spear point are at my face!! It did not happened"
"These panoply is very heavy. Impossible for me to wear it ,so lets make a modern version of it with 1/5 of its thickness and then complain that greek armor is not protective"
And so on....
My landlord is a Greek man I am Tajik from my fathers side and Persian/Kashmiri from my mothers side. We often chat about the history of our people. He is a great man I love my landlord he always been fair and comes frm a good family
Fun fact: After the destruction of the Persian army in the battle of Plateau, the Greek general Pausanias ordered the staff of Mardonius to prepare a feast like the ones the Persian General used to have. He also prepared the infamous spartan meal (melanas zomos which translates in black soup, a very nutritious meal but with extremely bad taste). Then he invited all the Greek leaders to Mardonius tent and he presented both meals. He stated : Don't you think my friends that Mardonius is so stupid that he came from the edge of the world here to conquer our melanas zomos while in his country he was eating in golden dishes?
For Mobile users:
2:03 - Why were the Persians and Greeks fighting?
4:05 - How did the Greco-Persian Wars start?
6:52 - What was the Persian objective in Greece?
9:38 - To what extent were the Persians successful?
20:57 - Were the greek forces really superior?
Thanks
That also works on pc. Idk about console
@@suomusintti i think the dev fixed it on the latest patch on console.
Oh man, thanks for doing this! 👍
THIS IS SPARTA!
How the Greeks won at the Battle of Plataea: they had the high ground
Which would be interesting to understand since the Greeks were moving on the Persians... why would the Persians not have chosen the most militarily useful positioning?
@@ghandimauler They chose the most advantageous position for them, the level ground where their cavalry could operate. Then, seeing the greeks disorganized they attacked on the hills losing their advantage
Greeks: "It's over Mardonius, we have the high ground!"
Persians: "You underestimate our power!"
Greeks: "Don't try it."
Persians: * leaps and get their Mardonius chopped off *
Yes !! they copied Obi wan Kenobi !!!!
I am thinking of making a video about this. Some Persian cavalry attacked a retreating Spartan unit at the break of dawn. The Spartan unit turned around to fight, giving time for other Spartan units to come to the rescue. Then Mardonius ordered his left wing forward to help extricate his cavalry that had been partly caught in melee in unfavourable circumstances. Additionally, Mardonius perhaps perceived the Spartans as somewhat disorganised but by then most Greeks were at the foothills and had the high ground. To what extent, great or small, the high ground helped, none of us was there to know, but part of the victory was probably down to the fact that a substantial part of the "Persian" side never committed to battle. Most of the Greek allies of the Persians never went into battle and probably that was the reason why the "Persian" right wing did not get involved at all. Herodotus says that the Macedonian king had come to the Greek camp at night to provide information about the Persian plans and, if that is true, it is unlikely that the Macedonians would have been willing to fight for the Persians and the same probably goes for most other Greek allies of the Persians. Under the circumstances, Mardonius had to win over the Spartans to galvanise the rest of his army to fight for the Persian cause and his dying was a deadly blow to the the Persian chances of a victory.
The sheer amount of effort to pull out a supply line strong enough to feed tens of thousands soldiers with the technological level of that time could also be a reason of some of Persian's misfortune. Not to say the whole operation was bound to fail, but the feat of strength the Persians had to do on a daily basis in order to be combat worthy is impressive to say the least
10s of 1000s? LOL! Petty barbarians did so. Persians brought in more than a million.
I think that one of the major deciding factors was the rough greek terrain. In order to maintain a large supply chain to feed an army fighting across a sea is much more complicated than on land, implicating hundreds of merchant ships, friendly ports and a lack of proper infrastructure.
As a comparison, the roman campaign to pacify the germans was a terrible and bloody one that lasted several decades, and they had a strong land supply line through Gaul (France). Even so the romans only achieved a partial victory, never being able to conquer Germania, but instead opting to pacify it through diplomacy.
The persians had to rely on the same tactic as they quickly realised that a protracted war across the seas was far more costly than the greek territories were worth. Opting for diplomatic solutions was the best outcome for them to quell an otherwise minor thorn in the side of a massive elephant which was the Persian empire.
In other words, GG Persia, well played.
🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺👋🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👋
We were lucky
Or it was staged by xerxes himself ...like staged football or boxing games.
As Putin today...1 year pretenting that conquering Ukraine
🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👋
@@mancamiatipoola just saying. The Persians had control of Greece for over a year and couldn’t finish them off even though they heavily out numbered the Greeks that’s opposed them. Plenty of Greeks backed the Persians.
Well it didn’t help that they lost over 200 ships they were using as supply depots
5:00 they didn't have buses back in those days, it's more likely he threw them under a cart or chariot
Jonny Don't haha!!!
I rather like this notion! ...To think that, way back when, in an instance of dodging blame, it was common to say, "Well, HE certainly got thrown under the rolling oxcart/charging chariot!"
...or some equivalent thereof. 🤓 😁
Or perhaps a phalanx.
You know, now that I reflect a bit more, it's just possible that this sort of comment might have had its equivalent as far back as the Stone Age. One easily pictures some Neolithic tribesman uttering to another: "Well, you sure threw HIM under the mammoth stampede!" 😄
You don't know that! You weren't there!
Hardcore History opened my eyes to the fact that in the scale of the Persian Empire's rule and timespan, the Greco-Persian Wars were a relatively minor thing. It was a punishment campaign that was most of the time on the back-burner, and Darius was so prone to forget about it completely that he had someone to continuously remind him "Lord, don't forget about the Athenians". Most of what we know about Persian military action is from the West, when they had a huge border far into Asia in the East, and likely spent a ton of time and effort campaigning there and elsewhere about the empire. They dealt with the Greeks much more by diplomacy than combat, and typically more Greek city-states were on their side than against them.
Imagine if all we knew about the Romans was from the perspective of the ancient Britons when the Romans invaded Britannia. That's kinda what it's like to hear about the Persians only from the Greeks. There is *so* much to the story of their empire we'll likely never know about.
didnt romans write their history?i mean the persians didnt it
Your right except for the part about the empire history they are a lot of source and material found in Iran but unfortunelty lot were lost over time by different invasion so it's a bit less precise than greeks history but still really detailled actually
@@jacktheripper5112 that’s his point, so what’s yours?
As an Iranian I appreciate (& am shocked a bit) to see that open minded people who are not blinded by western propaganda still exist in the west !
Although the lies about Greco-Persian wars are virtually nothing in comparison to how deep some other western propagandas go in everything !
And honestly 90 if not 99 percent of the Iranians don't even know where is Greece ! We call it *Yunan* which is derived from *Ionia* !!! Even in the ancient times Iranians referred to all the Greeks as Ionians who were the Greeks of Anatolia & lydia ! ( simply because Iranians were always a United nation & people & from their/our point of view everyone else was like that too ! Ancient Iranians didn't really consider themselves to differentiate between Spartans, Athenians, ionians & so on ! *so when the ionians unprovokedly revolted & were supported by other Greeks in Athens, Iranians took it as a sign that all of the Greeks, city states or not revolted & killed innocents at Sardis and burned temples* !!! So it's only understandable that they wanted to punish this behavior & when they punished the ionians, they continued to punish the Athenians as well ! ( *From their perspective they were revenging their loved ones who were killed in the revolt & punishing everyone responsible* )
You might not believe me but we don't even know that Sparta was a city in Greece ! *if not for the popular God of wars game we would've never heard of the word Spartan even* LMAO !!!
I understand that for Greece it's such a pivotal moment of history when they could have a minor victory against the superpower of the world but for us , the number of our superpowers & their struggles & main enemies are sooo much that we honestly don't know or hear from these events at all !!!
Our ancient history/pre-Islamic history is like :
*Proto-Elamite & Elamite civilization 5000 years ago* !
*The Median-Iranians forming an alliance between their tribes & forming the Median empire against the Assyrian empire 3000 years ago & eventually defeating the Assyrian empire with the help of the Babylonian empire* !
*Cyrus the great being born in the province of Pars/Persia 2600 years ago & conquering the known world & all of its empires including the Median empire, the Lydian empire, the Babylonian empire, the indus valley, the caucuses & north west of India & then dying of old age in bed at the age of 71 years old* !
*Darius the great conquering even more lands like Egypt, more parts of the north west of India, the Scythian lands & the Balkans , south Russia & Ukraine* !
& then we memorize some names of the Achaemenid king of kings ( not what they did or anything else about them )
& then *Iskandar-e-Maqdoni* (Alexander the Macedonian) trying to conquer the Achaemenid empire & succeeding at overthrowing it 2300 years ago but then dying very young before he could rule anything ! ( I don't know where do people get this impression from that Alexander is called *Alexander the accursed* in Iran ??? Literally everyone either don't know him or if they do, call him *Alexander the Macedonian* )
Although I should mention that he's considered to be more like a barbarian general specially because of burning persepolis & its great libraries ! But no one calls him *accursed* ! I don't know where people got that from ?!
& that's all that we hear about the Achaemenid empire !!! *& since 99% of the Iranians think that Macedonia is different from Yunan/Greece , no one really knows that at some point Greece was our enemy* !!??
The word Yunan literally brings up 4 names in our minds: *Parmides, Arastoo/Aristotle, Aflatoon/Plato & Phisaghores/Pythagoras* !!!! That's it ! That's literally all that we know of Greece !!! (Also the news about Greece getting worse & worse in economy by the day)
Then there are way much more content & accounts (things to be studied) about the Ashkanian/Parthian empire & the Sassanian empire as the other superpowers of the world that were arch rivals with Rome !
( *The Parthian dynasty & the Sassanian dynasty together ruled Iran for about 1000 years, from 2250 years ago to 1300 years ago, as the world's superpower & were almost all the time equally matched by the other superpower of the world, Rome ! Untill the Islamic conquests in the 7th century A.D* ) so there's way much more content in those eras that we study !
@@mitalicsProductions why the butthurt ??
"I'm proud that 99% of my people don't know where Greece is" ???
*Why would that be of any importance to me whatsoever* ??? Honestly I couldn't care a rat's @$$ about that !
I just stated what's the truth ! *& honestly it was a very neutral statement that didn't carry any insulting meaning nor any praising meaning in it , just completely neutral* !!! You think if I wanted to insult you or downgrade you, I'd say it like that ??? Lol.
*There's either something wrong with your eyes or with your cognitive capabilities if you thought that was an insult* !!! Or perhaps you just don't understand English well.
Regardless, that was just a very tiny & irrelevant part of my comment !!!
My whole point was that: *I'm happy & a bit shocked that open minded people still exist in the west even after all the B.S they're feeding you with propagandas*
& I also explained our point of view on the matter & also pointed out why we have innumerable other significant parts & informations to care about & focus on !
& no !!! my ancestors recorded they history pretty Well enough !
But we've fought off almost every single major character in history ! From the Assyrians 5000 years ago to Alexander the Macedonian, Rome for 1000 years, the Muslim Rashidun caliphate & Saladin, Genghiz Khan, Tamerlan, the ottomans for half a millennium, the British, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Russian empires & the USSR, WW1, WW2 & even now we're giving a middle finger to the U.K & the U.S for wanting our resources for free & sanctioning us to death !!!
*ofc that many of our records were burned & destroyed !!! But it's irrelevant cuz what's important is our land & our identity & civilization & culture which is what we'll continue to fight on for against every single superpower that comes & goes* !!!
“Earth and water... oh you’ll find plenty of both down there”
In a scottish accent
Hollywood's creation .now I know.this. in Spain Spanish, Greece Greek, Thailand Thai, Russia Russian, American English, so on so fourth. Captions for those that choose captions. Much better than the voice language of a 1970,s Bruce Lee film
Persians > Greeks. All day.
Iran is more historically important than Greece.
Anybody that has actually achieved higher education knows this. Nietzche and Hegel were way ahead of the curve when they said this.
@Ezio Auditore For sure they are/were. Greeks were slaves to their gods, Persians invented monotheism and the concept of personal agency in decision making. Better science, arts, literature and technology. Greeks lasted such a short time. Persian civilization was reborn several times and still exists. Alexander didn't beat the Persians, they rose again through Parthia and the Sassanid Empire.
And in the movie that wasn't made: "This! Is! ATHENS!!"
@@thexalon Athenians allied with the Persians against the Spartans and vice versa many times.
*”To think that chaos is at the root of where we stand today, can be scary”*
I like that a lot, and it’s very true.
It's very unlikely. Chaos may have helped the Greeks once or twice, but you don't accidentally beat the most powerful military of the time through mostly luck, and this video really doesn't provide a very convincing argument for this. At the end it literally says it doesn't have the answers then says "oh well, must have been chaos", so even the video doesn't agree with itself on this, lol.
🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺👋🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👋
We were lucky
Or it was staged by xerxes himself ...like staged football or boxing games.
As Putin today...1 year pretenting that conquering Ukraine
🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👋
Just as another example of failure by luck. The battle of Wu Zhang Plains in Three Kingdoms conflict ended when Zhuge Liang (the commanding official in charge of Shu) fell ill and died despite having the advantage. The lack of trust in his subordinates didn't help Shu Han in sustaining success after his downfall either.
@@adamjenson9369 No, the video quite clearly gives several relevant factors, but adds that there's also a fate/luck/chaos/The Gods factor at work, in things like the storms and timing and such. And it's not the only time this played a role... see the Mongol fleets wrecked while trying to invade Japan, or the freak winter cold in 1941 in Moscow that stalled the German offensive.
I am surprised that one factor left out for Persia's failure was command and control difficulties with a vast army of different ethnicity, religions and languages. Even the best general would have a hard time with that.
True, but the Greeks of the time spoke wildly different dialects as well. Later in the Peloponnesian wars, Athenians accidentally attacked their allies once during the siege of Syracuse because of their dialect.
I imagine that on the whole, differences between Greek dialects was a small problem compared with Persian difficulties in holding together and commanding vassals that spoke different languages, had different customs and religions, some of whom were unwilling vassals. Herodotus claims that on the night before the crucial day in the battle of Plataea, the Macedonian king who was nominally a Persian vassal, came to the Greek camp to provide information to the Greeks about the plans of Mardonius. I also feel that control over such a multi-ethnic army was a factor and that the Persians could coerce their unwilling vassals to fight for them only as long as the Persians were winning decisively.
Your so right. If you think about it that's a whole science into it.
This guy compared dealing with dialects to dealing different cultures and languages entirely 😂
Oxtocoatl Latin was the official language of the Army.
Correction: At 24:44 the graphics state the Greeks were "Untrained levies". This is incorrect. It should instead say "non-professional" or "militia" to be more aligned with the script which states the Greeks were "levies who mustered in times of war without regular training". This is in the context of an argument for a smaller quality gap between the armies than is typically depicted as opposed to an argument for a non-existent gap which we did not intend to make.
Tbh I still think that is unfair, you have to consider the popularity of sports with the Greeks, like wrestling and pankration, it creates a naturally more athletic pool of recruits. There is also the Pyrrhike, which is taught in schools and practices for festivals, I'd say the Greeks were more akin to national guard than untrained militia, maybe not quite as much training but you get the gist
I think the most obvious reason for the Persian failure was the difficulty of projecting power at such long ranges. Whereas the Greeks could quickly replenish man and equipment losses, the Persians had at least a 1-month lag time just to get troops and equipment to the front lines. At this point, you have to project what you think you will need, and any error can be very costly. If you call for more men, expecting losses, and you don't lose as many troops, you may not be able to feed the excess. If you have a significant setback, the enemy now has a month to run wild. You can't fight a war like that. The same scenario later occurred in the American war for independence, and with both Napoleon and Germany's invasion of Russia. Once your response time starts being measured in weeks and months, it becomes an impossible war to win unless you have truly overwhelming strength. The Persian invasion force was strong, but not overwhelming. They could not simply bury them in bodies.
@Stateira Ardeshiri The Greeks invented the middle finger.
Pathetic american propagandists.
As mentioned by Daniel Abbott’s reply athletic activities and training was occurring on a daily basis along with other activities so yes "Untrained levies" would not be the correct term.
I would also want to add the different mentality between the Greek and Persian world.
To explore this better you can try deep diving on the battle of Cunaxa (401 BC) and the adventures of the Greek mercenaries employed by Cyrus the Younger in order to dethrone his brother Artaxerxes II (Described in detail in the book Anabasis) . During the battle Cyrus died and his troops scattered leaving only the Greek mercenaries on the field which after pushing back the enemies left flank the turned back and scattered the victorious Artaxerxes’s army to learn soon after that Cyrus was dead making their victory invalid and finding themselves stranded in deep hostile territory. After trying to negotiating with the Persians they are deceived and they lose their general and senior officers which were captured and executed by the Persians. What happened next? They just elected replacement leaders and after a lot of marching and endless hostilities they manage to reach the Black sea shores and safety.
So in conclusion:
Cyrus dies > his army collapses (except the Greek mercenaries)
Greek mercenaries leaders die > replaced with minor effect on the army
The events above are from a period after the Greco-Persian wars but you can also find this behavioral pattern during the Persian wars as well
Leonidas dies > His soldiers fight brutally to claim his dead body (it is said that the king’s dead body changed hands 4 times between the Greeks and Persians).
Mardonius dies > Persian army collapses.
We can also witness this going on at Alexander the Great’s campaign and just by observing the way the battle plan was drawn (when facing Darius) with Alexander attacking the king’s position directly or indirectly in order to break the Persian army and even without their king (or army leader) dead but fleeing the Persian army routed (at Granicus they fled leaving the Greek mercenaries fighting for them behind…again).
PS: You could also add army cohesion to that scale as the Persian army relied on allied troops of unclear loyalty and discipline (some of the Greek city states that allied with the Persians seriously underperformed against their Greek compatriots staying idle during the battle or retreating)
"Suppose that the city of Sparta were to become deserted and that only the temples and foundations of buildings remained: I think that future generations would, as time passed, find it very difficult to believe that the place had really been as powerful as it was represented to be."
-Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, c. 400 BC
All archaeological evidence of Sparta was completely destroyedand exterminated by the French man Michel Fourmont during the Ottoman occupation.
nonetheless thucydides was born a greek, because of the spartans. Otherwise would be an half-breed mistake of a rapped white woman, like in america or greece today. Have fun.
At 24:53, the Homoioi Spartans were actually truly professional soldiers, they couldn't even live with their families between the ages of 7 to 30 because they were obligated to train for war and also weren't allowed to work.
And you guys didn't even mention the phalanx, the phalanx formation was a clear advantage to the greeks in battle.
Ah but as they say amateurs study tactics. Professionals study strategy. And masters study logistics.
@@TribuneAquila And impolite people ignore the facts to find a way to indulge their own ego.
@@TribuneAquila And masters fight on their land so they dont need logistics ;p
the Persians had phalanxes of their own. There were greeks and phoenicians in the Persian army, all of which fought in the phalanx formation.
@@alexandertheok5649
The argument about the phalanx it's very probably true. But I believe that the armor and the materials used by the Greeks were superior, the Persians couldn't make a phalanx that was a wall of bronze like the Greeks.
And I don't believe that the Greeks and Phoenicians fighting alongside the Persians had the numbers to make a difference in the outcome.
5:16 another reason why Spartans didn’t help the Greeks in Anatolia was that they were Ionian Greeks while the Spartans were Dorian Greeks. The Athenians helped the revolt because they were also Ionian.
Correct
This is wrong my friend.
The Greeks of Anatolia werent all Ionians. Its just took the name the hole Asia Minor because of the Ionians(IONIA). Actually the city which started the revolt(MILITOS),was an Ionian colony.
The 3 main Greek tribes who collonized Asia Minor since 8th century B.C. were the Aeolians(NORTH PART), the Ionians(CENTRAL PART) and the Dorians(SOUTH PART). Actually Herodotus was from Alicarnassus which was a Dorian collony.
Sparta didnt support the revolt because thats was her policy at the time. Never to make long campaigns and never to risk her army out of Peloponese.
The Ionian that went to Sparta to talk with Cleomenes wanted to hire him to go all the way to Pasargadae, or something like that, which was ridiculous.
"You mean that you want me to march THREE MONTHS to find the enemy? Get out!", or something like that.
Yes as pointed out by others this statement is false. While the Ionians had maybe a larger presence. The southern based poleis in "Ionia" were Dorians. Knidos, Kos, Halllikarnasos, etc...The Rhodians were also Dorian Greeks.
@@deathdoor Yes exactly my friend.
Aristagoras was his name. Tyrrant of Miletus at the time. Ionian colony.
Even the little daughter of Cleomenes didnt trust him. Argo was her name, who was five or six as far as i remember.
because the Greeks succeed to interdict the supply of a huge army, after the destruction of the Persian fleet in Salamis. ''Battles are won by warriors, the war is won by logistics''
"The amateurs discuss tactics, the professionals discuss logistics"
"To think that chaos is at the root of where we stand today can be scary."
Heresy detected. The Inquisition has been notified.
*laughs in Prosperine*
😅😅😅
@CXVII 117 R the emperor protects, does the inquisition need assistance from the legion astartes to cleanse this heresy
Clearly the Greeks won cause they was da meanest an da greenest
@CXVII 117 R Of course this is heresy. Everyone knows that Diversity is our strength, and that Mandarins of PC are guardians of Truth.
I feel like you misunderstood Dan Carlin’s episodes on this because he goes into this over and over even detailing that incident with the Greeks trying to figure out how to kill the Persian Calvary guy. He just prefers the colorful version and you can tell by how he tells the story, but the whole tune he’s saying don’t trust these numbers, you can’t trust these sources, goes into the array of troops each side had, and generally says “idk” or “seems like it could have been” all the time when discussing possible reasons why the Greeks won. Basically he did a long version of this video with more “color”.
Just posted a comment echoing this sentiment. It seems like he probably didn’t actually listen to Carlin’s series on these events. If he did, I’m not sure how you could come out of that feeling like Carlin felt any one factor like weapon systems won the conflict.
What I learnt from Carlin was that in the rock paper scissors of majority archers vs majority heavy infantry, Persia beat Assyria but the Greeks won due to a surprise charge downhill at lightly armoured archers boarding boats
Def his 1 day of research is apparently on a 20 minute is apparently more valid take. The ego of this guy. This channels likes TK out too much opinions as fact is why I will never sub.
@@darthbelicheck3559 I think the problem in this topic is because of not enough valid historical sources remain, to pull out a solid truth. Nevertheless, it is still a topic of popular interest; so the channel tries to provide the audience with the best perspectives and opinions, and that's it.
Of cause if you are so much into real fact only, you are free to not endorse it.
Definitely an over-reductionist critique of Dans take on the subject. He's open to talking with people who disagree with him, so see if you can do a collaboration on the topic.
You mentioned Persian armies descending on the "Hellenistic World". It was Hellenic, not Hellenistic. The Hellenistic culture only emerged as a mixture between Hellenic and Eastern cultures, following Alexander's conquests.
there isnt a hellenistic culture. There is the Hellenistic era which extents from the death of alexander to about the second century Α.D
Yes i agree the Hellinistic period began after the death of Alexander the Great
@sciphynuts care to elaborate?
sciphynuts yeah right where did you read these bs?
@@giorgosdim9845 You couldn't be more wrong.
First, there was Mycaenean Hellas, which existed during the Bronze Age.
Then, there was Classical Hellas (aka Classical Greece), which extended up to Philip of Macedon's conquest of most of Hellas.
Then there was the Hellenic cultural group, encapsulating post-Alexander Hellas as well as the Successor States (Ptolmeic Egypt, Baktria, Pontus, Odryssia, the Seleucids and more).
Hellenistic culture was a broad encapsulation of the cultures conquered by Philip and Alexander of Macedon once they were syncretized with the Hellenic culture.
P.S. For those of you who are interested, even modern Greeks call Greece "Hellas" and themselves "Hellenic". The word Greek comes from Graecia, which was a Hellenic city-state that colonised southern Italy. Upon encountering the Romans, they introduced themselves as Graeci (people of Graecia), by which Romans then called all Hellenic peoples, and was gradually etymologically evolved into "Greek".
Something about the Greeks training for war ... all the Greek games (as among many others, the Olympics) were not just sports games but more "gymnastics" oriented to war. Hoplitodromos was a fully armored athlete running a stadium distance in record time. "Pagration" was a fighting game with bare fists, knees and kicks (usually without rules). Most of the so-called Games were part of the aggressive civilian preparation for war. And further more, do not forget that the Greek cities were independent states, often in long and bloody wars with each other.
Oh yes ... the Greeks were well trained and ready for war.
A perfect example of what 'bad translation' is ... Greeks don't call them Olympic Games but Olympic Contests ('Agones' , which word has the same root as 'Agonia' - Strugle ). You wouldn't believe how many of those Bad translations are out there in the 'History' books ... one can realize only if he/she learns Ancient Greek Language which is the mother of all tongues.
i agree that Greek military preparedness was more a basic social construct than that of a government program, but what few commentators seem to ignore is the contrast of the Persian success along the Asiatic coastline vrs their failures (missed it by that || much!) vrs Greece itself.
1) The myriad number of little islands and coves of the Aegean sea made it a perfect environment for ambush as opposed to the coastline of Asia.
2) Logistics for the Persians along the Asian coastline was fairly simple and similar to other campaigns they fought a thousand time before, but Greece was different. The stony ground of Greece did not yeild enough crops to sustain a large Persian force, and so it would have to be supplied across the Aegean sea, which Greek fleets could and did intercept at points of Greek choosing to maximize their strengths and reduce their vulnerabilities.
3) Once the battle of Salamis destroyed the Persian ability to supplement their supply and logistical requirements with naval supply, the Persians had to reduce their number of troops that garrisoned Greece, which in turn opened the situation up for a Greek win at Plateau.
So, no, the Greeks did not win due to simple martial superiority but because they exploited the terrain and geographical position they enjoyed in Greece to maximize their force multipliers while the Persians were fighting a predominately naval war, for which they much depended on Rhodes, Cyprus and Tyre to provide and had much less experience. The Persians lengthy supply lines over sea that was not easily secured made the final long term goals untenable over sea.
Greeks where like "only we can fight each other!"
i think Greece is the only country in the world who has suffered more slavery in their history than any other nation from the Roman annexation of Greece in 146 BC till 1453 and then the Ottoman conquest of Greece which that lasted for almost 400 years till 1828 so it is almost two thousand years of slavery that Greeks suffered ..........
@@zaroonyakhyakhan4514 Americans slaving blacks with racism up to this date
@@specfei9895 what does this have to do with what he said? He’s talking about slavery that lasted thousands of years. Comparing that to the less than 200 years in America is idiocy.
@† Vato † first of all christianity is not the religion of greeks and once greek fell to rome after that and to this date greece is pretty much irrelevent and you said who else did the same in history but i won't say who i will say the only one that did that is Iran and Iranians because Iran is the only country to became a super power many times, many ups and downs but Iran always came on top so from the Median Empire to The fall of Achaemenid Empire to Alexander the Great then they became a super power again as the Parthians as The Sassinids and as the Safvids and now the Islamic republic of Iran not a supeer power but hey right now whole world is aginst Iran but Iran is not giving up. Iran the Epitome of Pride. so tell me which other country like Iran. i like greece a lot great country though.
@† Vato † no wonder greece suffered two thousand years slavery because they stop passage to europe at the time when there was no europe and they suffered it because they could hold a shield.
Your arguments at 27:30 actually make the opposite case you mean it to. Quality of troop doesn't mean super human movie stunts, it means a good discipline. Like not over extending your center and being collapsed on like at Marathon. Or continuing to execute the battle plan even if your commander falls like at Plataea.
One thing that bothered me is that you kept saying "history is written by the victors". That's true when the enemy is wiped out, but, as you say in the video, Persia was hardly ended by defeat. The problem is simply that the Persians had a much weaker literary trail. You can blame this on the disruption and destruction caused by the Alexandrian conquest, the Mongols shitcanning the region into (seemingly permanent) insignificance, or disrespect by the Muslim empires. Whatever the cause, the reason we have Greek accounts and not Persian ones is because Greek successors cared enough (or were lucky enough to find) to preserve them while Persian successors did not, not because the Greeks 'won'.
persians did write but all of them burned by greeks and arabs and mongols after that. books and writing were very important to persians so they didn't burn books and destroyed tablets that had knowledge or were useful unlike some other nations.
@Stateira Ardeshiri Of course the Persians contributed a lot to history and to the inventions that we still use to this day, but in this case we're talking about the documents and writing that we have from the persians of this time. We barely have any writings passed down from the Persians due to nations and people over the centuries destroying them or even losing them.
“YoU hAvE nO kNoWlEdGe oF tHe PeRsIAnS”... yeh that’s the point
@Stateira Ardeshiri I'm saying that we have more from the greeks on the Greco- Persian wars than the persians
@Stateira Ardeshiri Nowhere did I imply that the lack of knowledge was due to the inferiority of the Persians. I certainly did not want to engage in a cultural pissing match. It was more aimed at the use of that particular phrase. Sorry you expended so much effort missing the point.
I know that TH-cam says to keep your videos short, but I really like these longer, more in-depth episodes.
Great video but I think you forgot another very important event early on, Athens used to be ruled by a Tyrant Hippias who was deposed and then Athenians started a democracy. The Spartans felt that a democratic Athens was a danger to Sparta and threatened to invade Athens and return Hippias to the throne. However Athens sent envoys to Darius Court to seek his aid because they feared Sparta marching on Athens and he told Athen's envoy for water and earth. To Persians that is a subjugation under the king of Persia but to Greeks alliances were temporary thing which lead to the huge misunderstanding. Anyways Sparta did march to Athens but the Athenian could not send an messenger to Persia and bring the Persian army fast enough so the Athenian army marched out and met the Spartan army and defeated them. This gave Athens a huge boost in confidence and thought nothing of the Alliance with Persia since they realized they could take care of themselves. But in Darius eyes Athens was a vessel kingdom to Persia and soon when the Ionian revolt happens and was aided by Athens wasn't just seen as another region in revolt but since they help Ionians they were seen as the instigators and leaders. They had to be punished in the Persia eyes
"Vassal" kingdom
oversimplified but yes, that's what's behind the Ionian Revolt. Should also mention that Athens invaded and burnt temples in Sardis, capital of the satrapy, which later became the reason why so many temples got destroyed in mainland Greece.
Talking of Athens as the poor guys that got invaded and did nothing to deserve it, it's completly wrong. And HER points it out all throughout his works, he keeps reminding Athenesians that their narration is not true, it's imbued in propaganda.
Speed bump? Bra it was huge. It gave the rest of Greece time to collect aswell as shifting their mindset to winning the war instead of a hopeless situation. Dude
Somehow he is trying to diminish the insane feat to his "objective" analysis , but apparently we dont know a lot .. lolol we know so much directly written from sources both Persian and greek and historical data. The campaing was seriously documented from all sides
Because Persia is that new Total War player that rushes the whole army into a pike formation.
Except that the Greeks didn't have phalangites. The hoplites fought with much shorter spears than in RTW 1 where they're almost the same.
Persia was the superior veteran player, who humiliated everyone until everyone thought that their only way of surviving at all was to trust each other and work together.
Didnt you watch the video? Its there just to prove you wrong.
What
Persia didnt watch online battles enough
@@miguelmontenegro3520 Yeah, doing it live sucks.
16:40 "Battle of salamis" sounds like one hell of a sausage fest... I will see myself out.
And close the door behind you. Thanks.
If you're looking for a solid female character, You can find Admiral Artemis there in the battle of Salamis. She was the second best admiral of the Persian Fleet. Second only to that of Sidon.
Ah yes, the battle where the Persians tried to use quantity at their advantage but were beaten by the quality oriented Greek chefs
@@vahidhashemi9684 You mean Artemisia. But do we have any actual and trustworthy sources supporting this claim? The sources I've read up to this date weren't as favorable about her actual exploits. So I was kinda surprised but not surprised to see someone who could be none other than her on a second 300 movie poster (though haven't seen the movie yet) and expected the makers just put some recognizable figure into it and made her actually cooler than she was.
@@Epifairos There is some evidence that Artemisia was a real person, though it's likely that she was glorified to the same extent as other similar people from around the same time (Xerxes, Themistocles and Brasidas, to name a few). Propaganda was very important for morale, after all, if your commander is legendarily good then you're going to fight harder because you genuinely BELIEVE that they're that good. Same for fighting against them, if the enemy commander is a strategic legend, the heart could go out of your fight.
As for Artemisia's historicity, it's likely that her reputation was gained partly from merit, partly from ferocity, partly from ruthlessness (it is currently thought that after winning a battle she would kill all but one man from each city-state, mutilate him by removing his ears and one hand, and then send him home to report on what she had done to spread fear, panic and her legend), partly from her competent subcommanders, partly from propaganda (see above) and partly from the fact that she was a woman commander in a time when war was firmly a purely man's domain.
That said, reputations like that must be gained for a reason.
*_5:25_**_ You cannot just dismiss the burning of Sardis so easily @Invicta. There were four capitals of the Persian empire. Babylon, Persepolis, Ecbatana and the fourth one was supposed to be Sardis which was meant to be the Capital for Anatolia. This was not just the capital of the Persians but also by the Greeks. While it may be unclear who built the city it is clear that it was inhabited by greeks at one point in history. So the Greeks burned a city that was inhabited by Greeks because it was under the rule of Persia. They cut off the nose to spite the face. The people living in Sardis were probably Greek noble families and the ones burning it were a bunch of poor plebs. Of course, this would infuriate the Persian king._*
Sorry, you forgot Susa
@@Zenmyster Yeah and Susa. I'm not going to risk dishonoring my name by having the "(edited)" shit like all of those "Edit: OMG ty for 2000 likes" BS
Sound kinda butt hurt
@@johnnottellingyou2402 about what?
i might be wrong but i think you put more weight onto nationality then is fitting for the time, we call them greeks, but i believe they were more tied to their city state or culture rather than to bigger idea of nationality, after all, greek states were constantly fighting each other
Bit of a weird shot at Dan Carlin at the beginning. He covers pretty much everything you did and more in his podcasts on these events. I don’t think he ever claims that one single element like weapon systems was the reasons the Greeks were successful, though he does talk about that factor as one of several that were in the Greeks favor. I think you two would actually agree on most everything you covered here. Great video though, love the channel.
its because this is a bias interpretation, according to this guy, the Persians were peaceful kind enlightened empire, and forced into a war with ignorant Greeks that should have known their place. note the language, persians dont commit genocide, or destroy or rob/pillage. Instead, they clean up, and incorporate. as in any history lesson, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Dan also has always went out of his way to state that he’s not an “expert” too. His commentary in King of Kings is great cause it sounds more like he’s just having a conversation with you and the whole Arms and Armor comparison was something for him to geek out about. If anything, he makes it sound like possible supply problems for the Persians are what led to Greek victory.
Yes, the author offers to tell us why and instead simply gives a narration of events. We are left to conclude Persia failed because it lost battles. The author gives no explanation of why.
@@bluu7964 I mean, better not get cancelled right? LOL
@@bluu7964 I'm about 10 mins in and the Persian's are pillaging, sieging, attacking... yeah no you're just a Philhellene
The two most overrated factors in war are technology and numbers. The two most important factors are moral and logistics.
Most underrated comment here.
Isnt numbers also logistics
@@cc0767 Nope, you can have an army of a hundred thousand but if you don't have the food and supplies to keep them on the field then you have poor logistics.
food is also a number, so is oil, distance etc. Logistics can be said to be also numbers, just a different number.
Numbers as in number of enemy troops...
What is important is many Athenians were able to flee the city before it was sacked due to the time bought at Thermopylae and cape artemesium
not true. they decided to flee from Athens after the army lost at the Thermopylis, and up until the last moment they considered a diplomatic resolution with the persian army (ie ally with them and formally accepting persian rule).
The Mongol who felt victim of Japan Kamikaze send sympathies to the Persians drowned at Mount Athos
The theme of Random chance in both invasions failure is similar
**Spain sad noise** while they had been plundered by the English privateer.
This video seems to dismiss the Greeks as stumbling into victory and seems to imply that the Persians essentially achieved their goals so they didn’t quite lose either. Yet somehow the historical record is bias because the Greeks were the victors.
Completely missing from this analysis is the importance of the makeup of the forces.The Greeks had a cohesive fighting force, while the Persians had a massive multi-cultural force. This is why their lines broke at vital times. Another dismissed factor is the tactics. You mention that the terrain helped the Greeks but that’s not all just accidental. In many instances the Greeks forced battle in terrain/locations that favored them. This isn’t just some coincidence, it’s smart tactics.
I get trying to push back against the 300-ish notion that the Greeks were this elite force and the Persians were just large but this take goes too far in the other direction.
his info still solid though persia had some greek cities on its side though so they also had some discipline among their troops and don’t forget the royal guards, immortals, they were professional soldiers they had great deal of discipline and highly equipped so the man made no mistakes and as it pains me as half greek but yes ancient greeks tended to exaggerate for propaganda and diplomacy purposes
and yes taking into consideration
technically speaking persians did acheive most of their goals and it’s known that they definitely fueled the war among the greek states till Phillip of macedon came 💁🏻♂️
Everything that @Antonio said is correct, and I would also add that the greeks were BY NO MEANS a cohesive and/or homogenous force/society. I don't know where you get that idea from, but I see exactly were you're going with the "multicultiral" line about Persia, which is pretty ironic knowing that Persia's acceptance/integration of various cultures is one of the main reasons why they got so great and powerful in the first place.
@@j4genius961 the greeks are a cohesive force as they all fight in the same way, talk the same language and have the same helenic values.
Sure the persians have a vast empire but many of their tributaries as shown revolted against persian rule and their forces funnily enough are going to break before a man defending his home in a tightly knitt phalanx with his fellow greeks.
The persians can be tolerant and intergrationist but they are still multi cultural and with it comes some serious flaws, a scythian is going to have nothing in common with any of the other vassals and they are gonna look out for there own.
@@Tommonius
Xerxes the Great, King of Kings, in his time the leader of the largest empire the world had even known, is lectured on the "dangers of multiculturalism" by a cartoon frog. Simply incredible.
@@DemagogueBibleStudy not an argument.
imagine the patience and discipline required to hold your triremes back until the perfect, ideal moment.
Very relatable
As a fan of both Dan Carlin and his excellent Kings of Kings series, I think the criticism laid out in this video is valid. Dan Carlin acknowledges the uncertainty in the narrative of these events due to a lack of contemporary and unbiased sources. However, he makes a conscious decision to use Herodotus as his main source because he thought it made for a more dramatic and compelling story (he compared the theatrics of Herodotus to modern Hollywood action flicks). Carlin does liken the Battle of Plataea to a (US) football game where only one side wears pads (the hoplites) because it's how Herodotus describes it more or less. However, this narrative decision is made with open eyes, and Carlin warns the listener about this bias several times. Therefore, I don't think the account in Kings of Kings is reductive or misleading, but rather an entertaining and informative account of one of the only surviving viewpoints. That said, the counterpoint in this video is wonderfully delivered. I love both Dan Carlin and Invicta for what they both do!
In addition to that, Dan Carlin also did mention the Persians being overstretched. His explanation for the Persian loss was not attributed to one thing.
It's funny, because during ancient times, Herodotus was accused for pro-persian bias
He also spoke several times about how the numbers on these things don’t always add up. You can’t just make armor and spears and have hoplites just like you can’t just make armor and short swords and have Roman legionaries. Boiling it down to weapons systems alone is impossible.
Dan main goal seems to always entertain, more than be accurate. He is an "amateur" historian, or even less than that, and he makes this clear frequently. He just wants to tell a good story and his listeners knows this.
sitiesito Agree. Dan Carlin rocks. Sorry leaves Invicta in the dust.
My knowledge of the Assassin's Creed Odyssey map finally coming into play lol @ 5:32
I still find it funny (pleasantly so) as a Persian that we and Greeks don't hold a grudge towards one another about this. I guess when both of us had razed and burned each other's cities to the ground so often it's like two friends reminiscing over the old days.
That or maybe because we both hate the Ottomans lmfao.
Hahah i couldn't agree more. Love from Greece sending courage to the Iranian people.
Stay strong arian brothers.You don't deserve such oppression by the islamic regime
One of the main "exports" Ancient Greece had were military leaders (warlord or Polemarchoi) with a warband act as mercenaries all across Mediterranean as well as Asia. They were masters of warfare and it was a main reason why we Greeks never got along each other. Aside from philosophy, democracy etc. our ancestors were warlike people.
Without military advantage you don't exist even today.
When the Persians invaded Greece, they were ruled by the Achaemenids, and used large numbers of infantry spearman/archer combos. Such troops were vulnerable to hoplite heavy infantry.
They relied on cavalry for most of their elite troops. The footmen were just there to swing swords , throw spears and look mean. They needed wide spaces and plains to operate, and Persia and middle Anatolia were just that. The Khwarezm empire in Central Asia, which was heavily Persianized also enjoyed large wide plains, at least until the Mongols arrived, bringing even more superior cavalry tactics. Greeks had stronger infantry and armor, with capable generals to command them, excelling in close quarters and keeping formation.
If Alexander himself was not a cavalry genius Persia might have won at Issus or Gaugamela.
@@SantomPh This. Could not have put it better myself. Have my like, good sir.
@@SantomPh the Persians won later.
@@saeedvazirian Where exactly did the Persians win later?
@@SantomPh I agree that the Persian army was a bad fit for the mountainous Greek terrain. But I don't think Alexander won at Gaugamela solely because he was a cavalry genius. I believe Alexander's genius was to use combined arms tactics at a time when the term wasn't even invented yet. Those tactics weren't even his own - he had inherited the hammer and the anvil idea from his father. Not meaning to dismiss his merits, only, he was building on lots of stuff, it isn't like he came out of nothing.
I feel like it's the same with Carrhae. I see a lot of people giving all the credit to horse archers being superior over heavy infantry, but many other Roman vs Parthian encounters show that is not the case. I think the biggest blow would be seeing your son return as a head on a pike. You can't expect a man to be composed and logical in that situation.
The son who you deliberately sent to his death trap & the son who you betrayed & ignored several times & the son whose head you recieved weeks before the battle you mean ?!
Yeah, *no actually* ........ it wasn't that much of a blow to him at all !
The man who foolishly put his whole army into a square so he can be surrounded by archers on horseback. And that was before his son got killed. (Also because of his dumb command to just charge lol)
Great video and nice analysis! One thing I wanted to point out is that not many people actually argue that the Persians were weak troops. The common analysis I see is that the Persian quality (both in training and in gear) was very spotty... you'd have some contingents every bit as kitted out as the hoplites, and some which just didn't bring the weight of metal.
I find it hard to believe that the Greek warriors were not superior to the Persians. The whole purpose of hiring mercenaries is that they have advantages that your troops do not have. The Persians used Greek mercenaries profusely. Given the high cost of maintaining mercenaries it does not make sense to keep hiring them if your own troops are equal to them in quality.
You also have to take into account things such as the Battle of Cunaxa, 401 B.C. where Arsaces' left flank collapsed and fled the battle after engaging the hoplites whereas the right flank actually routed Cyrus the Younger's flank. The Persians would not engage the returning hoplites who had been engaged in driving off the left flank from the field. Throughout Xenophon's march up country the Persians would not engage in pitched battles and when small scale hand to hand engagements did occur, they got the worst end of it. Their successes came from hit and run tactics and excessive use of missile troops although these did not destroy the Greeks, who eventually made it home.
Then you have to consider their heavy use of mercenaries again when facing Alexander the Great. The point is why keep using Greek mercenaries if the Greek warriors are not superior to yours. You can draw many men from across your empire, who have varied fighting skills thus making your armies more dynamic but you insist on using Greek mercenaries. Regardless of exaggerations, the fact is that the Persians lost more battles than the Greeks did during the wars.
Uncle, brother, read the history, then tell a poem, Cyrus, the Persians, who are all guiding you, what do you say? We failed a little. We defeated the count and then with the betrayal of a soldier Alexander was able to win😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
We all won the wars, we have a civilization, we defeated Rome and Greece, you have nothing, you have a right, it's hard, you lost, because we are Persians, we defeated the world, if you remember, you did not defeat Maro and Rome once. Cyrus the Great, who you say easily conquered your country, then you are not enough to defeat us😪😪😪😪
@@AriyanHawes another iranian nationalistm alexander defeated persia. Rome defeated persia too so don't smoke crack
@@ggkphilosophy rome and Persia never defeated each other. They just got locked in stalemate until the Arab conquests where they both got whooped
@@AriyanHawes you never defeated greece and never defeated rome winning some battles doesn't count as a defeat since you just took some lands and nothing else the arabs and the greeks destroyed you on the other hand
Here are the facts.
1. The Greek naval victory at Salamis destroyed the Persian war fleet. As a result, the Persians could not supply their vast armies of three hundred and plus thousand men with food, horses, and additional troop reinforcements. As a result, the Persians had to limit their army to 40 to 50,000 which made it so that the united Greeks could field the same number of troops in any given battle.
2. The Persians used their numerous cavalry as an instrumental component in their previous battles that established their Empire in the East. The mountainous terrain of Greece prevented them from having or using them in any battles in Greece. Of course, the Persians could not supply the fodder needed for large number of war horses.
3. The Greeks were united. The Persians thought they could disunite them. The Persians were wrong.
4. Revolts and invasions in other parts of the Persian Empire distracted the Persians.
5.The heavier armor and weapons of the Greeks were more superior to the wicker shields of the Persian infantry. The Greek phalanx could not be withstood by the Persian infantry. It was like the ancient version of battle tanks.
6. Never underestimate the spirit of soldiers fighting for their home land nor soldiers who fight with the same language, and culture and religion
Flashbacks to my Herodot seminar in university and reading the books.....and having to write a paper on some of the more "fantastic" elements of it......"good times"
This is why I love the Greeks. They’re close to unbreakable. Saw massive armies in front of them, with an army half their size, stand together with their brothers and still fights. That’s very impressive, especially people’s that had no internet, cars, or a/c.
Only a few cities did that though... as you can see on the map, most of Greece was either neutral or actually bent the knee to the Persians. So they're nowhere near "unbreakable" or "united", a few resisted powerfully and ended up winning.
Impressive, looking at how greece is being invaded by primitive criminals, lost most of its turism (i wont be returning to greek islands to see african marauders) without putting up a fight.
@@chrism7199 Actually many Greek states like Epirus and Akarnania, as welll as Corcyra and the states in the modern Heptanese didn't even intervene, the Thebans allied with the Medes and the Macedonians and the Greeks of Asia Minor also. Only really the Athenians, the Plataeans and the Eretreans and the Peloponnesians fought the Persian onslaught meaningfully from 490 to 479 B.C
I love the idea of winning a war by "checking boxes" while getting steam rolled in every major engagement of the war. They had more men, better cavalry, better logistics and more resources. They got smoked.
The Persian infantry were too light to fight the phalanx head on but we often read that the Persian infantry would only flee if their leader was killed, they also had a march named after them (Persian counter march ~ Xenophon) which shows they were trained soldiers. There are so many accounts of Persian commanders dying in battle, from king Cyrus to general Mardonius to Prince Cyrus the Younger and the Satraps who died trying to kill Alexander at the Granicus they seemed to have lost a lot of leaders and it always caused a collapse of the army.
@@terryturner4116 Anabasis
Yes modern humans can stomach all kinds of failure, long as boxes are checked. Bureaucratic devils that we are.
*watches stupid video* *notices first name in Patreon credits*
you're just a racist idiot. The only thing that got smoked was Athens. Convenient of you to leave that pathetic western defeat out. Lmao. The Persians won.
I'm interested to hear Dan Carlin's take on these things, especially now because I don't think he'd say something like: "They won because they had better arms and armor". I guess its time to listen to all of Kings Of Kings...
I don't think it is fair to say that is his main argument. Just that he quotes a lot of primary sources like Herodotus who say this about battles like Marathon despite it not necessarily being true.
It's been a while since I listened, but usually Carlin emphasizes that sources will tend to be biased towards their parent civilization.
@@InvictaHistory Thanks for your reply. I like Dan Carlin but haven't heard the podcast in question, loved this video and reminded me I have some hardcore history I have to catch up on. Its always good to hear the different sides of the stories / different perspectives and hope you make more stuff about Greece 'cause videos like this are enthralling to me.
I listened to King of Kings recently and can't remember what, if anything, Dan Carlins specific comments are on the greeks in battle or if he just lets quotes from herodotus speak, but Id argue the whole point of the King of Kings series is to try and look at these classic battles from a Persian perspective, starting all the way back with founding of Persia and discissing their culture and what made them distinct. Its a while before greece even enters the picture, I dont think its in the first part at all, and only partially in the second. His specific comments on the battles may be more innaccurate than I remember, but I want to say he made relatively simmilar comments to this video, including how this was only a minor issue to Persia, and none of their "losses" were as major of setbacks as greek writers like to present. Maybe he could have had more contextual commentary around Herodotus's quotes but even that I want to say he calls greek propaganda, and calls his numbers into question. This is all alongside his commentary on how Athens had only recently become a democracy, and their were still major tension surrounding that, or the propaganda at play with getting the Athenians involved in the Ionian revolts in the first place.
Love the shout out to Carlin
Invicta: gladly rambles about little to none surviving Persian artefacts on Persian strategies
Olso invicta: Greece with some of the most known ancient historians alive at the time:
We don’t know the accuracy of the information due history fog and greek propaganda.
Yeah, I don’t get this either. His opening gave me this exact message
And it’s slightly disrespectful in a sense.
As a historian, I personally believe that a propaganda account is far more reliable than a vague account or no account at all.
@@Vossenator Nyaaaah - I don't necessarily think so. If you have a wealth of information already, a propaganda account can suppliment that because you can possibly make out what is fabricated and what might be real, true. If you have little to no information though, a lie tells you little because you cannot seperate truth and fiction reliably.
@jimcle mctson Yes, the Greeks wrote down a lot and invicta necessarily used that information to tell this story - but that doesn't mean that we can take every Greek source at face value either, invicta is right about that. If we had a lot more Persian sources, we would have to weed out the propaganda from the truth there too, of course.
@Ionian Yes, there is history here and this is isn't being debated. But propaganda doesn't necessarily mean turning the story on its' head 100% and claiming you won when, in fact, you capitulated.
The Greeks won those battles but stuff like numbers, individual moves and details like that are quick to be bent and it is tough to get it right, even if an historian is trying his best to not let any of the many wrong tellings he is confronted with slip into his records.
We can be pretty certain that the Persians did NOT field anything close to the claimed hundreds of thousands of soldiers, so this 'detail' is very probably wrong. The Greeks are by no means the only party being scrutinized in this way. Ceasar's numbers are probably wrong for sure in most occasions, for example. It isn't unlikely e.g. that he had the numerical advantage in a number of his battles in Gaul instead of, as he claimed, being vastly outnumbered. Yes, we know that he won those battles and that he won the war - but that doesn't mean that we can trust every word he ever said.
Regarding the battle of Marathon my professor in the Greek military academy I served had written a book about what happened. He claimed that the Greeks lured the Persians to fight in a swamp that could not be seen by the enemy, where the Persian cavalry was trapped and could not move!
Yeah hills, sand, marshes and dense forests are known nemesis of horse cavalry
@yannis...- I would love to know the the title (and author) of the book!
Mr Lagos ? Great historian
@@dorianphilotheates3769konstantinos lagos, he has a super podcast about the battle of marathon
13:24 we should mention the famous return of Pheidippides after the battle was won for the Greeks.Legend says that he ran all the way from Marathon to Athens ,wearing full gear as to not be seen as a deserter, and reaching the acropolis to announce victory with one single word "Νενικήκαμεν" (we won) and then dropped dead.This event resulted in the famous olympic sport of marathon run as we know it today
When Athens was sacked, it was an emptied city, because all of the citizens had left to salamis, where they naval battle took place. So sacking yes...killings..doubt it.
not everybody left
Some barricaded themselves in the Acropolis, and they were slaughtered once the Persians breached the walls.
@@todo9633 mostly old men and religious men who refused to let them step foot in the temples. well that and the fact that the acropolis is a hell of a defensible position to this date. which is why the persians covered the sky in arrows before marching up.
Seems a bit drastic to leave your entire city just to get some Italian sausage.
I like the way you do your commercials. I can easily skip them, but I generally actually listen to them because they are about cool stuff and I like YOUR review - not the company's advertising. When things aren't forced or done underhanded, it's amazing how people respond differently... take THAT - Adpocalypse... Some of the very best military analysis I've ever heard! Bravo!
22:45 And they say Socialism doesn't work, comrades! Yeah, it only helped save Western Civilization that one time... 26:48 Or, as Lt. Col. Hal Moore said in "We Were Soldiers," - where the metal meets the meat... Your points about the end, about countering those "Nihilistic ideas" that "we can't know anything, and it's pointless," were amazing. I agree, and wish I could have drawn on your words many times over the years in discussions and debates.
29:11 In the Modern world of martial firearm use, we say there are 5 factors. I think they're universal. 1 is Mindset. 2 is Tactics. 3 is Skill/Attributes. 4 is Gear. 5 is Luck. You're right, random chance has determined history to a huge extent. Our fates hang on the great D20 in the sky lol. "You can't count on luck, but luck counts!"-John Correia, evidence-based defensive traininer, channel ActiveSelfProtection
Great video, as always. Keep up the good work, you're a true historian :)
As a Greek (and a historian of Ancient Greece and Achaemenid Persia), this is was well-researched and balanced presentation of the events. Inevitably, there are a few inaccuracies, but largely a good analysis - well done! Greetings to the great people and civilization of Iran from your ancient frenemies: the Greeks!
Great presentation, although I believe you tried too hard to refute the general consensus about the reasons Persians lost.
Maybe it was an attempt to be a bit more reactionary, devils advocate and revisionary but nevertheless it contained some flaws.
For example, drawing the performance in battlefield from the Ionian revolt battles and putting them on the same scale as the mainland greeks is wrong. We can't compare the Ionians who took arms and fought for the first time after decades, with the mainland greek city state hoplites who were fighting an internal city state war every 6 months. The experience and the equipment, as well as the tactics can't be compared, nor it can be a data point for the mainland greek performance in battle.
Same mistake was done by Persians after the revolt, where each time they faced a substantial greek force (not counting the 7k in Thermopylae, though for the size of the army they stalled Persians too long) they were defeated (Marathon, Plataea, or the later agis and cleomenes adventures). Even the 10000 of Xenophon show how much better professionally and how much more equipped the Greeks were in warfare. The Persians were simply outmatched in quality and tactics as most of their usual battles were on plain fields taking advantage of the size of the army rather tactical maneuvers.
Secondly, one of the most important factors was the cohesion of the armies. While the greek city states were fighting each other, they used same equipment, tactics, language etc, the Persian army had heavy armoured Greeks along with tribes with nothing more than a spear as equipment. This has a psychological impact, for an army seeing so many light armoured units of theirs killed so easily.
Persians also relied a lot on their cavalry for their campaigns, while greek cavalry was non existent , something that would surely give great advantage to the Persians at least at Plataea.
Don't forget that as history is written by the victors, the defeated will always have an excuse (in Thermopylae it was efialtes, in marathon it was the marsh and the cavalry of Persians not deployed in time, in salamina it was the narrow straits and the defection of some Ionian ships, in Plataea it was the death of mardonius in the heat of the battle and so on)
All in all this was the high point of persia, from the Persian wars and onwards we see a transition in warfare, with the greek style of fighting, and equipment being the dominant one, against the quite dated for its era Persian one. Alexander's swift conquest of Persia with a much smaller force would be the high point of the greek warfare, until it lost its power and effectiveness by the modernised for that era Roman warfare and military system.
Greek bias
Not exactly, persians had great cabalry and they ised it alot and great army, but the phalanx was most imoactful when cavalry and other means are not very suitable. Persians were super in big terran with the use of cavalry plus the other forces. Alexander made army to fight that but before Greeks were i think successful in terrains that the pahalanx can be used while cavalry and ither forces abd combinations are less suitable.
Very good points friend although I have a hard time accepting that the Persian Army was on the whole inferior to the Greeks. I’d say each had its strengths and unique weaknesses. After all the Persian army has had numerous competent and talented commanders and famous victories. Below is a list of a few Persian high points during and post GP wars.
After Xerxes burns Athens twice and leaves Greece with the bulk of his army the possibly outnumbered troops under Mardonius put up a decent last fight at Plataea with a large contingent successfully retreating north into Anatolia.
The Athenian expedition to Egypt was a massive Greek defeat resulting in peace talks.
While ejecting Persian garrisons from central/northern Greece the Greek coalition was unable to take Doriscus held by the competent Mascames.
King Agesilaus II’s invasion of Anatolia years later resulted in zero gains territorial or money wise and only a few skirmishes with an eventual Spartan withdrawal. Any gains he did receive were due to support from Satrap Tisaphernes who opposed Satrap Pharnabazus (Persian loyalist facing Agesilaus II.)
The Persian’s deployed a successful navy during the Corinthian War that crippled the Spartan Navy off of Cnidus and allowed Athens room to breath.
The Greeks were effectively managed diplomatically by Persia who installed Sparta as a Loyal greek lawman post Corinthian war upon threat of Persian military action.
Alexander nearly lost the naval war while thrashing Darius III, facing possible supply shortages as a result.
The last recorded Achaemenid battle, the Persian Gates 330BCE resulted in a Persian Thermopylae. With Ariobarzanes going the way of Leonidas.
The list goes on:)
Well said
@@DefeatedRoyalist The Persians won the last battle. Darius III would be the hegemon here, so he thrashed the terrorist alexander.
Iran won.
Your comparisons of strengths leave out any naval comparison. Salamis demonstrated/confirmed Greek superiority at sea; after Salamis, the Persians were on the defensive. How often did a Persian fleet defeat the Greeks, before or after Salamis? The Greeks retreated from Artemesium, yes, but they were not defeated.
There are many factors playing in this. The Greeks (the free Greeks who resisted) had an overall fleet of 371 trirremes to be exact. The Persians had 3 times that number, about 1200 of them. They had lost quite some ships. Herodotus mentions about 400) in bad weather in the notoriously difficult Aegean sea. Yeah, not many people are aware of how tricky is the Aegean sea - too much tourism in summer in modern Greece makes people think it is an easy sea! But let them sail in winter there!. Yet they had replenished the numbers, lets say bringing in 200 more to make it about a 1000 ships just before the battle of Salamis. We need to note that there is a repeated pattern in Greek-Persian conflicts were Persians always tried to bring 3 times the Greek numbers, precisely because they knew that 1:1 Greeks had the upper hand. Why? Because on land Greek troops were usually heavily armed and better in close combat. And in sea, the Greeks were superior to the Persians. The Greek fleet of 371 triremes was comprising of 180 Athenian triremes, 40 Corinthian and 30 from Aegina, the three most nautical Greek states at the time who had superb ships and highly trained crews. They also had a tight command and excellent knowledge of the Aegean sea. On the contrary Persian fleet was a collage of 300 Phoenician ships. 200 Egyptian ships, 150 Cypriot ones (Greeks - thus not trusted), 100 Ionian ones (Greeks - thus not trusted), 100 Cilicians, 100 Hellespontine Phrygians (many Greeks in as well), 70 Carian ones, 60 Aeolian ones (Greeks - thus not trusted), 50 Lycian), 30 Pamphylians (mostly Greeks - thus not trusted), 30 Dorian (Greeks - thus not trusted), 17 Cycladian ones (Greeks - thus not trusted). Out of the 1207 ships mentioned by Herodotus about 350 were Greek and another nearly 200 had a large proportion of Greek crews - which were all not trusted. Add that on top that Phoenicians and Egyptians (two nations hating viscerally each other!), had each 300 and 200 ships as well as the large number of other nationalities, it creates an army where communications and co-ordination of actions and moves were really a headache. Add on top of that, that plenty of Greeks on the Persian camp were passing information to the free Greeks - and first and foremost Alexander I of Macedonia who was named after the war as a Philhellene - and back then the term was given to Greeks who were nationalists, i.e. who fought for the common cause of all Greeks, not just of their own state), it all gives us a situation in which Persians really had not at all any upper hand just because of their numbers. So Greeks played in Persians smartly letting them go in the narrow straights of Salamis and waited the right moment when they knew the wind would change direction at around noon (something the Persian command ignored) and as such they delivered a devastating counter attack. The rest is history. Numbers usually prevail. Just not always. History has taught us this lesson multiple times.
@@dinos9607 Wow the Persians had a lot of Greek ships...
@@alexwschan185 Oh yes, plenty indeed. Far more Greek sailors and ships in the Persian navy than the % of Greeks in the land troops. Now, the Greek governors of the Persian-occupied Greek regions of Ionia, Aeolia, Doris, Pamphylia and Cyprus were kind of willingly collaborating with Persia, the most prominent being Artemisia. The investors and makers of these ships were also glad to make money. But the Greek crews were largely conscripted as servicemen to the Empire and as such not all were happy about what they were doing there to their brothers in Greece. As such there was less motivation among a substantial part of the overall Persian navy. Add this on the fact that Egyptians had brought 2/3rds as many ships as their age-old enemies Phoenicians and thus the Phoenician "upper hand" could had been challenged by them - we do not know details but these two were enemies who hated viscerally each other and they could only work together under the Persian hand.
So while Persians had 3 times the numbers of Greeks, they certainly faced organisational problems. Greeks too were divided in their states and since each came with his navy they had severe disagreements but of course under the imminent threat they managed to find ways to consolidate on a given strategy.
@@dinos9607 the Greeks are just superior by genetics.. simple
@@osu3167 lmfao ok buddy
While Persians have some heavy infantry - their armies have mainly light inf. and cavalry. Which is weaker in this terrain. Thermopylae is great example. In Asian Minor and Northern Greese terrain allow persians to use their strong sides. But in many greese battle hoplites fight vs "poorly" (not cuz they poor or bad, but cuz they are have different combat role) armed light infantry. We can read about this from herodotus and over autors.
And this is the reason why later persians establish a custom to hire greek mercenaries in great numbers. Who later will fight Alexander in Asian Minor.
Yes and no. Difficult terrain has to be used properly. As Athens showed in the battle of Sphacteria, light troops could exhaust and overwhelm heavy Spartan hoplites in bad terrain. Yes - the conditions of that battle were pretty specific but the military forces of the Greek states generally relied on both sides agreeing, in a gentlemanly fashion so to speak, to fight on suitable terrain. Terrain that would have suited the mass phalanx, given that all sides were predominately armed as such. As soon as that wasn't the case, they could be quite vulnerable. So I'd say a commander committed to 'total war' in such times, and not agreeing to 'gentlemanly norms', would actually prefer light troops in diffcult terrain for their maneouverability.
However as others have pointed out here, logistics are key here too. Given enough time, a wily commander could pick apart, harry and demoralise a heavy Greek phalanx with skirmishes and ranged attacks with nimble and swift light infantry/cavalry, I'm sure. But would they have the time and resources to do this? At some point they would be forced to accept a set-piece battle to try and finish off the phalanx before they ran out of their own supplies.
Although there a great deal of mystery as to exactly what how they were organised, it's interesting to see that when Alexander came to power later on, his elite foot units were not the sarissa/massed phalanx, but the ones that had different roles, such as skirmishing, ranged attacks etc. Possibly because he was more of a maneover commander and relied on such troops, as well as his fabled companion cavalry amongst other arms, to move fast to surprise the enemy, while the phalanx's role was to just block and hold.
Perhaps we have been coloured by the later republican Roman army, where it's velites skirmishers were the lowest and poorest class of citizen, least well armed and not the crucial for the main focus of Roman infantry tactics, as well as the continual development of the heavy class of armoured horseman that could easily swot aside lightly armed infantry?
@@lordvenusianbroon You totally wrong, lol. Battle of Sphacteria? It was 11000 vs 440 lol. What you even talking about?
Peltasts was lowest class in Greese too. While hoplites was much respected elite. Almost the same with post-Alexander states. Simply cuz light infantry most of the times cant deal decisive blow. They can support, but they cant win by themself. In case of Persian army - they already have strong cavalry, and was on of few nations in this time with existing heavy cavalry. And they mainly use light infantry, even if it "could easily swot aside" by cavalry. Why? Cuz cavarly cant do it easily. Do you forget what stirrups still didnt exist? Persian archer units have light spearmans in their ranks, who protect archers from cavalry and cover unit with light, but large shields. Also persian cavalry cover infantry from enemy cavalry. This work extremely well in open fields at this times, but purely in mountain terrain of Greese. Why heavy infantry strong here? No, not cuz enemes have some gentelmen agreements (where you even find it? Do you have proofs?). Simply cuz such terrain left ittle place to flanking. Face to face, this is fight where heavy infantry shine. Light infantry cant fight here in melee for long, cant rely on cavalry for protection and eventually render useless. Remember - this is reality, not some PC game. Than melee starts - missle weapons cant be used anymore, friendly fire here is not an option.
@@Chikanuk I can't take you seriously when you can't even spell or punctuate correctly. Though if English is not your native tounge then never mind.
@@Spartan265 dont talk to me then. Simple solution to your problem.
@@Chikanuk Lol had a bit too much rant-juice? I've tried to go through what you're trying to argue, and I'm afraid nothing really seems to make a lot of sense. I was rather hoping for an interesting discussion, but I think Spartan265 is right and probably English isn't your native language. I will try and keep it simple.
Bad terrain is generally bad for phalanxes and their cohesion, alway best to try and avoid it if you want to do a major pitched battle. (But then again the Greeks knew their own land better than the Persians and therefore held the advantage on how to utilise it with the forces they had in these campaigns, so there is that.)
I wasn''t talking about Cavalry at the time, but later developments way in the future. I should have been more precise, so apologies.
When I write 'gentleman's agreements' in quotation marks it means: don't take these terms literally. But when two city states decided to have a pitched battle if one side had a decided advantage in terms of terrain, the other side would rarely take up the offer of a battle (something that has occurred in all wars, across all time!) If you wanted to entice an enemy to attack in a full battle, in ancient times, a neutral level plain was the most likely 'offered' site to succeed. Of course there are a host of other reasons why you might attack or not: logistics as I said before, the morale of your men, political considerations, to gain surprise etc, and sometimes ambushes worked extremely well. But commanders of both sides would have a tacit understanding that if a regular battle was to be had, both sides had to agree to a certain place!
The class issue is, I think, important. Were all hoplites elite? Yes, in a way, I can see them as the 'knights' of the Greek States. They were the upper class of their societoes and controlled them, including what was written about them. In the same way that the English lionised their elite knights for their victory at Agincourt in 1415, but they barely talked up their longbowmen. Only later did we attribute the value to the longbowmen that had in winning the battle and the successful English tactics at the time. So similary for Greek culture at the time, I believe that the clash of two phalanxes with two sets of hoplites was seen as the pinnicle of warfare. (Spartans, of course, famously disdained any weapon that could kill at a distance, or anything like fighting from a horse.) Of course this was highly idealised. Anything a simple archer or peltast did was unlikely to be recorded or seen as worthwhile, even if it had a major impact on action.
Anyway, look, I didn't quite agree with your original comment. Some of it is fine, but I thought I'd try and discuss some of the issues more. I must now go and do other things.
Hope you have a great Christmas and a lovely New year.
A whole 30 mins video to end with I don't know. Great channel.
I wish I could double like this. cause you told time stamps in the beginning. I seriously appreciate that. Cause I normally just fast forward as much as possible without trying to miss anything
Don’t be proud of this. Fast forwarding means missing info. Whether you’re trying to or not, you’re gonna miss something. Bad habit to have, anywhere.
03:29 Anatolia was a region further east, and the name was given centuries later. The specific region at the time was called Ionia, as the expression "Ionian revolt" suggests.
24:44 The Greeks were trained levies (at least more trained than the Persians). Spartans were an exeption, they were a true standing army, as "professional" as you could get at the time. Regular training was widespread. The persian traditional sparabara formation of a spear/pavise frontline plus several raws of archers required less regular training than the greek traditional phalanx formation. A defensive shield wall requires a lot of regular training. An offensive shield wall, like the ones saw in Marathon, Thermopilae and Platea requires even more training. Several modern sources describe the greek infantry as "articulated", which suggests extensive individual and team training. And let's nor forget that after several months of preparations and 1-2 campaigns (characterised by a small death toll due to limited cavalry), a militiaman would know his drill. Therefore, in the next campaign he would be an already trained soldier.
27:53 Persian troop quantity was far superior than suggested. They certainly could draw from a pool of millions. The major problem was that they couldn't transport and support a large army in hostile territory, particularly the relatively poor mainland Greece. After a setback at sea (and Persians had several of those) the army would have to live off the land, and apart from limited local resources, risked to be submited to the well known tactic of scorched earth. As a result, the Persian army in Greece was an expeditionary force of selected troops, while Greek numbers at Platea (some 50 th.) was about all that the city states could muster.
28:12 Wars are won when one side gives up. At the time of Persian wars, the Greeks were not willing to do so. At the time of the Roman wars they were. Due to a lot of social, cultural and economic reasons, Greek states where at a cultural zenith, in what the historians describe as the golden age of classical Greece. When comon people believe in a purpose/ideal, they are willing to fight for it. Some centuries later, though Greek states became stronger than ever in paper strenght, popular beliefs were rather low in contrast with the Romans who had a rather easy time conquering everything.
Congratulations to all, on producing exactly the sort of presentation I could have wished to do myself. 😊
According to the people reporting immediately after the battles, there were about a billion more airplanes shot down than were actually built in WW2, where we had pretty good records after.
As we cross reference enemy records decades later, we find that it’s human nature to over count your enemy, and over count your victories.
I’m not claiming anything is wrong with this, I just think we need to understand that “100,000 men probably means “more men than I could count before I ran terrified.” Or it meant “ the biggest army I could raise in the month I had to ride around asking “.
Actually, Herodotus (our only direct source, sadly) sets the Persian army at 2+ million people. A more accurate reconstruction says 10% of it, counting civilians following the army, women brought for Persian citizens, slaves and so on. We have no real reason to believe there were less than those numbers.
Also remember, Attica at the beginning of 5th century had around 300.000 inhabitants.
@@nicolapodgornik6644 "A more accurate reconstruction" says absolutely nothing. It might not have been 2 million soldiers but until historians bring some evidence, 10% is just laughable.
@@thomasantipleb8512 well, those are actually more recent reconstructions made by HISTORIANS. and they are widely believed. Do your own researches.
@@nicolapodgornik6644 Unlike you, I have! I have studied ancient and modern historians and reconstruction is an idiotic term for idiots that cannot realise history outside modern standards.
@@thomasantipleb8512 well, my bad for not being an English native speaker then. In the language I'm studying ancient history in, we'd use the litteral translation of "reconstruction", and it would be accepted from an academic point.
Linguistics aside, it's pretty likely that around 480 BC not 2M people, but rather 200~K people moved from Asia towards Greece, guided by Xerxes, that what modern historians widely agree. Do you accept it now or will you contradict something else not related with the historical side of my phrase? Oh, and I use "modern historian" simply not to say "everybody else but Herodotus". Care to elaborate more?
First of all, stop commenting if your knowledge on this is based on the movie 300 people. That was based on a comic book, not a history book. Second of all, i don't get it.. Greeks were citizen / hoplites. Persians were mercenaries. And some people in comments are trying to tell me Persians didn't have slaves, were a peacefull nation while greece (city-states back then, not a nation) was a nation of lazy bullies. Apart from Sparta who always acted in the opposite direction of Athens, i don't recall another army industry city. At least not until Philip II. If the Persian Empire had such a great impact on cities / subjects , how come the "Greek nation" was the one that produced democracy, a great marine trade, scientists, art, historians? Apart from Alexander who wanted to become "Great" and spread the "Greek Way" all around the world, which nation has had expanding intentions repeatedly throughout its timeline? Btw, i 'm not saying Greeks didn't have slaves. After all, slavery was not invented nor terminated at that time as we can all agree
Athenians were Ionians one of the main 4 Greek tribes. Spartans were Dorians like those of Macedon. The other were the Aelolians and the Achaeans. So made sense for Ionia in Anatolia to ask for help from the Athenians. And correction: It was Xerxes in the battle of Salamis. Also, the Athenians were the ones to drop the Persian down gorge and the comment of earth and water was in Greek was offensive basically telling the Persians to go get it yourself.
Ni aecheans are all mycenean greeks it is from prior eras
killing messengers is a sign of cowardice.
Your proof that Greek victory was not due to superior troops and equipment was to recite a list of instances where Greek troops prevailed over larger Persian ones?
Having recently read Xenophons Hellenica, it was obvious to not only the Greeks but even the Thessalians that those capable of fielding Greek style armies had a clear and overwhelming advantage over the Persians
Even though the Persians also had Greek style heavy hoplite infantry too? hmmm....
@@richbob9155 yes. Supplied by Greek cities and mercenaries.
The vast majority of Persian forces were not of that type
I think the efficacy of Greek tactics and equipment is proven by the March of the Ten Thousand and later by Alexander's combination of that with stellar cavalry tactics to completely dominate the Persians.
That isn't to say other things weren't factors in any of these occurrences. Things like Themistocles' deception at the battle of Salamis and Xerxes killing of his Phoenician captains after the loss were major factors in the Greek victory in the Second Greco-Persian War. I think it would be hard to argue Greek equipment and tactics didn't do plenty of heavy lifting though.
για δες τους απληστους περσες που ηρθαν να φανε το φτωχικο κριθαρενιο ψωμι μας "2700bc"
@@vandur2322 Persias' elite forces were the Immortals, a group of 10.000 heavy armored infantry by the noble families of Persia, so no they werent Greek merceneries. If you try to apply that Persia had less well equipped soldiers that it true, cause you see in Greece every politis (citizen) was oplitis (hoplite) and his life was matter, in contrast with the Persian slave soldiers which were nothing more than walking meat fr the Persian tyrrant
The way this ancient history documentary presents the facts makes it feel like a movie. Truly epic! 🎬⚔
I think the quality argument should be less about equipment and training (since as you said, there isnt a big difference there), but about moral. Basically the greeks all had similar cultures and were united by a common enemy, while persian soldiers were shipped around the world to fight in strange countries with men by their side that share neither language, nor culture.
Also the greeks fought to protect their homes , any man fights harder when his family may be raped
There is also the fact that the Persians considered it a frontier war and were content with having accomplished the objectives they did accomplish for the most part. People often forget that the Persians won more battles, but as they said, it doesn't matter if you win all or most of the battles if you end up losing the war. At the same time, the Greeks were never a major threat to Persia, and the Persians wisely kept the Greeks fighting each other afterwards, which gave them a century where the Greeks were their own problem.
Yet according to progressive leftist rhetoric, multiculturalism is a strength. :P
Not really-Thebes and other Greek cities allied with Persia. This wasn't a Greece vs Persia war-this was Athens and allies vs Persia and allies.
The Persian war machine, just like the Romans and Macedonians, was big and multiethnic and usually worked. However, like those other two empires, it had limits on how far it could press it soldiers and where it could take them. Macedon stopped at India. Rome was stopped by the German forest, Sahara desert, Sudan and Iraq. Persia likewise couldn't go deep into India, south into Sudan, or into Greece.
SPQR modern multiculturalism works in creating pan-nationalism. That is, the creation of a new identity across ethnic lines. That’s what the progressives are fighting for in the West: the acceptance of other people groups to join their nationalities.
And this is not some recent progressive, leftist rhetoric. In America, for example, this has been a thing since colonial times. English, Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Irish, and other European settlers in certain colonies called themselves Virginians, New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians, and other such names. Eventually, when the USA was born, they decided to bunch them all together as Americans, with that American identity later was developed further after the War of 1812. Later on, more peoples are added as Americans like the blacks, the Asians, the Hispanics, and the Natives.
If you think Persian era multiculturalism is the same as modern-day multiculturalism, then clearly, oh mighty Rome, you truly have been living under a rock.
One book I read showed how Persia’s logistics was better then how some countries are today.
That book is garbage. Even the worst logistics of today far outdoes what Persia could have possibly achieved due to technological difference. I wouldn't trust that book if I were you.
You also neglected to mention that the "Persian troops" which supposedly "held their own" against the Greeks were actually Theban hoplites that were allied to Persia. The facts remain the same. Greek heavy infantry were just plain better than Persian troops.
Yeah he's trying to be a hipster with "special" opinion to stand out. Greek heavy infantry was simply better, its why Persians used also Greek mercenary hoplites against Macedon, cause their own infantry would have stood no chance at all.
@@teemuvesala9575 Crazy how he didn't mention how superior the phalanx was compared to a messy spearmen rush.
This only accounts for the Athenians. The Spartans were fighting non-Greeks, and they held until Mardonius was killed.
@@teemuvesala9575 Oh please, Greek mercs were just a small fraction in the Achaemenid army since they're using various armies from different peoples, with ofc, different tactics.
@@SetuwoKecik They used Greek mercenaries specifically against Greeks. And the Greek mercenaries were the core infantry of the Persian army when they were deployed, because they were the best infantry they had. The only time they were not deployed in the center was when Persian commanders were unsure about their loyalties. All of this is clear evidence they saw Greek heavy infantry better than their own. But as usual with your kind, be free to ignore the reality.
The reason the Persians lost is the same reason why almost every invading army loses to countries in mountainous terrain.
i was into the persian wars before 300 im an antiquity hipster. did my middle school medieval antiquity project describing the wars
Man parthian and sassanids beat selucid(greek) and roman (whome conquare greek) several times .
ok lol thats coolپارسا صدیق persians beat them own selves by growing too big
@@Soviless99 yeah with 100,000 vs 300 so funny
The Romans also beat the Parthians and Sassanids many times. It was a rivalry that swung back and forth for several centuries and only ended when the Arabs literally came between them.
@@brucetucker4847 not as much as parthian and sassanids and of course parthian were better by defeat them by 10000 against 42000
"Chaos is at the root of where we stand today." - best quote this year.
I agree very much. Without chaos, there can be no order, for we could not distinguish it. Who is to say had Mardonius not been killed at Plataea, that the Persian Army would have routed. Allegedly, he was spotted by a Greek soldier, who threw a stone at him, killing him. So here is some food for thought, what if the stone missed?
What if, indeed? Many years ago, my interest in Persian/Iranian history was triggered by a time-travel tale in an Uncle Scrooge comic, when I thought to myself, "Okay, I know about the Greeks, but just what was the Persian setup like anyway?" (Or musings to that effect.) That in turn invited a lifelong avidity for speculations in uchronics, or "alternate history". For a story set in a world where Greece was firmly leashed, Harry Turtledove (a grand master of the genre) produced a piece of short fiction entitled "Counting Potsherds", set around a century after Persian victory. 🤓
"Order out of Chaos" or Ordo ab chao, as the Freemasons and other secret societies love to say
I’m school this war was always summed up to “Greeks won Persians lost and that’s it”
Ya, it's always annoying when that happens, especially when it's on a topic your passionate about.
This is changing. Painfully slowly but its changing.
It has always been the learning style that information is pushed onto kids by force and resistance to that force limits the learning capability.
However, kids have prodigious capabilities for learning. By making the learning process interesting, the amount of information, and more importantly, comprehension of that information can be increased... well, no one really knows but possibly multiplied by two or maybe much more. And it is not some hype supertechnique, its what could and should be normal, describing only how failed traditional school systems are.
Yeah, schools don't have time to teach history--they are too busy teaching the kids how to use rubbers, and how to blame capitalism for climate change, and how to decide for themselves what gender they are (all while feeling good about themselves).
@@gregb6469 As a socialist who went through the American school system in liberal New York, no that was not the case at ALL. Climate change was barely touched upon, and only then discussed rising CO2 levels. And LGBT+ issues were something I fully had to discover and learn on my own; it was myself who pushed for, and got, a gender-neutral restroom at the school I went to.
And for the record, I was a conservative during high school.
@@lexingtonbrython1897 you are pathetic, pushed for a gender neutral bathroom? HAHAHAHAHAHA. You idiots provide unending entertainment
Fun fact: The Persians called all Greeks, "Ionians" despite them not being Ionians. Macedonians however was loosely translated by the Persians as "Ionians with big circled hats".
Also, the Greco-Persian wars were some of the most intense wars on both sides, and the common misconception is that the Greeks won a decisive war. What really happened was that the Persians were extremely close to winning, however the passage that lead to Peloponnesia was were the Persian campaign ended with a decisive Greek victory. However, the Persian were extremely close to conquering the Hellenic/Corinthian League and even had plundered Athens with little resistance. And another fact: 300 lied about the Persians mobilizing up to a million men, it was more accurately and roughly around 100 k-250 k soldiers from across the empire, and not to forget that the Persian king (Xerxes) at Thermopylae had quite a smart idea.
All ancient sources point to a million , Persia has a poly platoon of 44 millions.
They only plundered Athens because the Greeks evacuated the city to reorganize and fight the Persians later.
@@filmmanmel Greeks weren’t a country back then , Athenians decided to leave but others mainly Spartans to fight. Athens was planning to immigrate to Italy since they already immigrated on an island, I k iq it sounds stupid but sissily was mainly Greek and Athens was pretty small with many ships
Your fun fact is actually false fact. Macedonia in persian translated to Maghdonieh and Persians knew Alexander as Alexander of Macedonia. And since there wasn't any Greece at the time so other nations as Sparta, Ionians etc were known by their ethnicity groups name. Where do you get your facts from?
After Greece was invented by West then Persians used "Yonan" derived from old Persian word of Ionians as the name for calling Greece.
@@PanosPitsi I know vre malaka, i know that sicily was mainly greek. Also they weren't going to leave Greece unless it was completely lost to the persians, the athenians played a crucial role in defending against the persians maybe more so than the spartans. Marathon, salamis, these were both victories for the greeks thanks to the athenians.
Don't forget that beefs can run 100 or even 150 years & not forgotten back then, time moved slowwww. Herodotus said the first beef was when one of their Princesses was kidnapped while shopping (yes shopping) at the harbor by Phoenician merchants. After years of back & forth Persia wouldn't pay up. Yes keep the chick but pay us, lol. The Phoenicians became so nervous they dumped the chicks off in Egypt but still no go for the Greeks. Persians had a credit default in ancient terms in Greek eyes. A whole list of crap built up between these 2 before boom all out war.
@Revolutionary Communist ok commie
@Revolutionary Communist You know She's gorgeous if she's Greek!
I mean while he says that he definitely just made that up to make it seem like the Persians started it. Like that's literally lifted out of the Iliad so I'm gonna say it's a fabrication.
I thought you were talking about cows at first
any place where we can read more about this, it's a blank spot for me
Lets not forget that the greeks were fighting for their land, families and survival. That's like plus 100 morale and the persian empire's troops were a mixture of many different tribes, fighting an offensive war for a king they had probably never seen thats minus 30 morale
Not really. Greeks were slave owners and their settlers included many non Greek slaves too. This is when first line of Persian army was Greek mercenaries who were fighting for money or hated Athens. They fought each other for long years. Both were morals and couraged. Greeks were behind many messing ups in persian territory and they didn't like it
@@immortal5563 would you die for a month's payment?
would you die to protect your family and or your property?
my comment was about why the greek army morale should have been better than the persian army morale
@@kapoioskanenas2337 and that's not correct, it is 300 movie logic 😂😂
In morality Persians builded their empire without using a single one slave when this shameful culture existed in Greece until Muslim Conquest of Constantinople in 1453.
If Greeks fought for their freedom and their lands then why dozens of Greeks joined Persian army against their own country fellows?
Amazing and interesting video as always! Keep it up :)
It is so simple.
The Greek warriors were free citizens.
Greeks had education, they had values and ideals, martial virtue ,they were trained, gymnastics and sports were a main subject in public education , better equipped, they fought for their country. They had excellent organization and discipline, obedience to their leaders and trust in their Gods.
They believed in the immortality of the soul and they had confidence in their city that after death it would pay tribute to them and glory and amenities to their family.
No, they won because of logistics and good planning. The Persians had many of those things you mentioned too.
Great video, very much appreciated!
Very nice depictions. I love my Greek brothers and sisters ❤ a special bond we have❤❤
Isn’t that flag a disgrace of Iran
Greek society was based on militarism: the power of the state was based in a society that was focused on military doctrine and training. Persian society was based on commerce, particularly the taxing of caravans going to and fro through Persian lands along the trade routes to Egyptian grain, Chinese silks and spices, Indian gemstones, Eurasian furs and timber.
As a result, Persian armies were basically mercenaries with little loyalty to the state aside from their pay. This explains the poor performance of their armies. The minute the battle begins to look like it's not going well, the mercenary begins to think he won't be getting paid after all: why die for that?
But the Greek armies had a military doctrine that was trained to think of the state from birth. Patriotism made the soldier consider the power of the state along with whether the battle was going well, and believe in the cause of his commanders, not just whether he was going to survive the battle.
Persia = power of the state through gold
Alexanders Greece = power of the state through militarism
So you're saying that America is a neo Greco-persian empire?
Your overall analysis is true about Persia/Iran in general. But it doesn’t apply to the Ancient Persia of Achamanids
I suspect another consideration worth mentioning, is that Greece was just another place of foreign contention to Xerxes, who had his hands full with a variety of other distant sectors of the empire to manage and maintain. It wasn't his only or perhaps even a very high, area to devote time and resources to. His return to Persia after completing the majority of his "check-list" and leaving Mardonius behind for 'clean-up', I suspect lends weight to this. Greeks pulled off some amazing feats, to be sure but they weren't the only ones Xerxes had to deal with.
Picture Greece as a great chamber upon which the piston of Persia is pushing downwards.
One can imagine that as the piston pushes further and further into the chamber, the peoples, within it become more and more cohesive, just as pressure would mount.
In a scenario like this either the piston is strong enough to push the material into a solid state - imagine crushing sand into sandstone - or it is not and the forces equalize at a certain point wherein the piston can go no further, and we could go as far as saying that such a point was the battle of Plateia.
Under this however simplsitic view of things one can nonetheless clearly say that the equilibrium of forces was reached and that no gains by any part could be advanced.
As with similiar systems in nature - the resources necessary to achieve a breakthrough and crush in absolute resitance would prove exponential to the rather linear needs of the defenders and as such, no more effort was made into the conquest of the remainder of Greece.
Aye, we could say it was a Persian sucess as much as it was a Greek success - since that is what balance implies.
All well engineered!!!!!
"This is gonna be a long video" No worries mate, im used to Dan Carlin podcasts!
Only our youngest would make 30 minutes sound like an eternity.
Thank you for this. A very nice summation of the Great-Achaemenid Wars.
Personally, had I lived back then I would rather have lived in the Achaemenid Empire than Greece. From what I've read the Greek city-states could be nasty places. Even Athens murdered Socrates.
The Achaemenids were less so, and had all the advantages of a proper empire.
It would be a mixed bag on both sides. On one had Greece had democracy and better education. On the other the Persian had outlawed slavery and had marginally better women rights. So I guess if I was a rich man I would prefer Grecce but if I was a woman or really poor I would prefer persia
@@paokarasre Uf you were a women sparta were also good