History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedJust how could Persia lose to Greece?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
jamshidi_f View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamshidi_f Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2004 at 14:47
Sorry TJK I did not mean any disrespects it just went out of my mouth(keyboard).
I respect your ideas and the fact that you know a lot about history.
Back to Top
Cornellia View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 474
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cornellia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2004 at 20:42

jamshidi_f, please understand I mean no offense....

But I'd be very careful about tossing out historical and archaeological evidence based on the theories postulated in one book.  You should check his sources and credentials and then check the contrary evidence before accepting any new theory willy nilly.

I did a google search on Dr.AbdoAzim Rezai and haven't found any hits yet.  I did find a Dr. Rezai who is a world renowned neurosurgeon in Cleveland and a Dr. Rezai at the University of Iran.

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
Back to Top
jamshidi_f View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamshidi_f Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2004 at 23:19
Sorry but we do not have a University of Iran. Maybe you meant university of Tehran. Yeah, he has also written a book called Ten Thousand Years of Persian History. I know that he is not very famous and I can tell you names of thousands of researchers that you can not find in google OR libraries. Thanks for your advice, however let me say that the history that we know is always on the side of greeks or Romans because American and British researchers are more famous and their work and information about them can be easily found in google.(Old British historians would always take the side of European victories) If a country like Iran had the ability and finances to create world famous History books would you think that we would know the history of the world this way?? Their researchers are not as famous as those of Americans and their evidence is not recognized that much.(not easily found in google) However, you are right and maybe I am wrong. THIS IS JUST AN IDEA THAT HAS A PROBABILITY OF BEING TRUE(ALTHOUGH SAMLL.).

Edited by jamshidi_f
Back to Top
Cornellia View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 474
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cornellia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 06:47

You presented what you claim is evidence and disregarded historical and archaeological evidence (NOT created by Americans or British as you claim - instead written by contemporaries) and yet you can't present the evidence at all......it doesn't have to be googleable.

It just has to be available for review and critique and cross reference.  It is not and that alone makes it unsubstantiated at best and suspect at worse.

My problem is that without being able to read and investigate Dr. Rezai's claims, I can neither accept nor deny them.



Edited by Cornellia
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
Back to Top
Imperatore Dario I View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 204
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Imperatore Dario I Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 12:25

I'm just targeting the original message. I don't think Alexander's invasion of Persia was necessarily easy, even if Persia did lose. Alexander did indeed struggle (at least IMO) fighting against Persian troops. Also, we need to point out that his father issued major reforms within the Kingdom of Macedonia which enable the rise of a small, though extremely well trained and powerful army. And we need to be assured that without his father's reforms, Alexander may have well failed in his assault on the Persian Empire. But a lot has to do with also a lot of Persian weaknesses. Persia was in a major decline by then. Even though it was still a major superpower, and even though her army was huge, it was in no shape for war. Frequent revolts, mercanary armies all took a large toll on the Persian war machine.

And of course, we all know that mercanary armies are basically worthless and untrustworthy to use in a fight, especially against the Macedonian army they encountered. Coupled with the fact that many areas of the Empire, like Egypt, and other areas wished to throw off Persian rule, that exceptionally aided Alexander in his conquests. And we've just gotta hand it to Alexander, he was a good general!


Let there be a race of Romans with the strength of Italian courage.- Virgil's Aeneid
Back to Top
jamshidi_f View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamshidi_f Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 14:35
Thanks a lot for all your informations.........
As I said it is just a new book written, and even I am not sure about it. It is just an idea...
I never said that it is the absolute truth......
Back to Top
Degredado View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 369
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Degredado Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Sep-2004 at 08:05
You people forget that Alexander was a genius. That is an important factor to consider as well.
Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas
Back to Top
Miller View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 392
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Miller Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 15:45

When wars were fought on horse back there was no such thing as technological gap and it was possible for the under dog to win a war over the superior power. It has happened many times during the ancient history. The ancient Iranians fought many wars and they won some and lost some. The few that get publicized are usually the the couple of battles lost to the Greeks. Any western movie made or any history book written about Greek/Roman and Iranian wars has a major twist favoring the Greeks. Technically Greece is in Europe and we Europeans like glorify them to satisfy our need for having an ancient history( I think it is some kind of complex). It just sells better. In reality ancient Greeks probably had much more in common with other Mediterranean and middle eastern cultures than with northern Europeans of that time who were living a nomadic life 

Back to Top
Evildoer View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Location: Vatican City State
Status: Offline
Points: 434
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Evildoer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Oct-2004 at 15:24
Indeed. Much of the Greek culture was inherited from the Minoans, who were highly influenced by Egyptians. Also they traded far more with the Middle East than with nomadic Europe which didn't have much to offer.
Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1460
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Oct-2004 at 20:45

Ya, i agree. Greece has been influenced by the Middle Eastern and Egyptian cultures more than anything else. Their alphabet is even derived from the Phoenician alphabet.

Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Status: Offline
Points: 2329
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Yiannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2004 at 03:00

Originally posted by Evildoer Evildoer wrote:

Much of the Greek culture was inherited from the Minoans, who were highly influenced by Egyptians.

If you continue this line of "influences" you'll reach the pithecanthropus of Africa...

When it comes to the Alphabet, the Greek merchants brought the Phoenician alphabet to Greece. It was not able to depict Greek language because of it's lack of vowels. So the Greek added them and the alphabet they created was able (for the first time) to be able to represent phonetically the language that it served. Meaning that if one knew the letters of the alphabet and would follow them in a word he could reproduce the sound of the word even if he did not know Greek.

In the Phoenician alphabet one had to know in advance how the word should be pronounced because it was comprised only of consonants.

In conclusion: everyone is influenced by someone. There's absolutely no "parthenogenesis" anywhere in nature. The question is what do you do with the influences that you receive?

The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
Evildoer View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Location: Vatican City State
Status: Offline
Points: 434
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Evildoer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2004 at 18:02

Still, its an influence. I am not saying Greeks "copied" technologies from other civillizations. Merely the roots go back that far. Its like English being influenced by the Norman French.

But its clear that Greece was much more of a Middle Eastern Civillization than a European one. I would even say that even up to the First Crusades the Greeks had quite more in common with Middle East than with the Western Europeans - omitting their common faith in Christianity.



Edited by Evildoer
Back to Top
xenophon2000 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xenophon2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Dec-2004 at 22:54

The Persian empire would best be classified as having a highly inefficient milliary system.  99% of the soliders of that empire fell under 3 categories:

1.  Immortals:  very limited numbers(10K), excellent training, but only obeys the emporer. (so if the emporer has no strategic sense, these units, not being organized for independent action, are basically cannon folder)

2.  Mercenaries:  Large numbers(40K), differing levels of training, and completely unreliable.  Mercs are basically worthless, since they can(often do) abandon the field of battle when the going gets rough.

3.  Slave conscripts(300K):  basically the weakest and most expendable serfs that plantation lords can spare.  These guys have almost no military training, and do nothing but waste resources and prevent the well-trained units from fighting effectively.  Additionally, being the weakest and most expendable, they often served as plague vectors, spreading diseases throughout the army and across the empire.

So given these 3 components of the persian army...we can infer that the Persian military, during the time of Alexander, had almost no military value despite it's enormous size.

Back to Top
Christscrusader View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 13-Nov-2004
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Christscrusader Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Dec-2004 at 23:01
Did someone say Alexander never  got to Persopolis? Where is this nonsense coming from? Obviously  a Pro-Iranian author is going to try to back the side of Persians as much as possible, such as with that book.
Heaven helps those, who help themselves.
-Jc
Back to Top
Miller View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 392
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Miller Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2004 at 00:31

This theory sounds kind of similar to how modern large-scale military forces have been structured

Originally posted by xenophon2000 xenophon2000 wrote:

1. Immortals: very limited numbers(10K), excellent training, but only obeys the emporer. (so if the emporer has no strategic sense, these units, not being organized for independent action, are basically cannon folder)

Special forces. In the US they are called Navy SEALS and Army Rangers

 

Originally posted by xenophon2000 xenophon2000 wrote:

2. Mercenaries: Large numbers(40K), differing levels of training, and completely unreliable. Mercs are basically worthless, since they can(often do) abandon the field of battle when the going gets rough.

Volunteers joining the military for pay. I think this is called "All Volunteers Military" around here

 

Originally posted by xenophon2000 xenophon2000 wrote:

3. Slave conscripts(300K): basically the weakest and most expendable serfs that plantation lords can spare. These guys have almost no military training, and do nothing but waste resources and prevent the well-trained units from fighting effectively. Additionally, being the weakest and most expendable, they often served as plague vectors, spreading diseases throughout the army and across the empire.

Ahhh..People forced to join the military regardless of what they want.  As in Draft?  

 

Back to Top
Romano Nero View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 132
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Romano Nero Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2004 at 10:38
Originally posted by Evildoer Evildoer wrote:

Still, its an influence. I am not saying Greeks "copied" technologies from other civillizations. Merely the roots go back that far. Its like English being influenced by the Norman French.

But its clear that Greece was much more of a Middle Eastern Civillization than a European one. I would even say that even up to the First Crusades the Greeks had quite more in common with Middle East than with the Western Europeans - omitting their common faith in Christianity.

Now, if there is a presumtuous and completely off mark post on this board, this is the one!

Greece was a middle eastern civilization? that is utterly silly.

What excactly is "Europe" and "Europoean civilization"? I find it hard to believe that you don't know that the word "Europe" is Greek and the Greeks named the continent.

But I digress. There is something today called "West". It is an artificial, more or less, term, more an umbrella term, trying to put a conlomerate of different nations under a common heritage. A heritage that is true, though.

"West" originates from Greece. The individualist, freedom-loving, democratic spirit of ancient Greece is what defines "West" in the first place.

Then come the Romans. They got a good deal of Greek influence to start with and when they took over the world from the Greeks, they re-definied "West", adding a series of other characteristic like industruous and  practical and proceded even further the distinction between "civilized" (="West") and "barbarians"(=non "West").

So, Greeks laid the foundation. Romans buld upon that foundation, expanded and brought the "West" concept in a great area of the world. After them, the various Germanics took over the legacy of Rome, and after a long dark age, created the regeneration of the "Western" spirit with the Renaissance - blossomed in the once center of the Roman world, Italy, and with the aid of the Greeks of their time, the Byzantines - and the consequential movements (mainly Reformation and Enlightment).

So, saying that ancient Greeks are not "European" is like saying Europe is in middle East = rather inaccurate. 

Regarding influences: Human civilization does not "grow" in a vacuum. ALL cultures throughout the ages own to eachother. The matter is, what a culture does with the influence. The Greeks got alot by the middle East but they created a miraculous culture. The Romans got most of their stuff by the Greeks, but created the glorious Roman culture.  See what I am trying to say? No cultures are born in a vacuum, human civilization is a continuity.

Back to Top
AAAA View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 05-Sep-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AAAA Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2004 at 11:36

Quote: "ALL cultures throughout the ages own to eachother. The matter is, what a culture does with the influence. The Greeks got alot by the middle East but they created a miraculous culture. The Romans got most of their stuff by the Greeks, but created the glorious Roman culture.  "

 

Just like how the Germanic were influenced bythe less sophisticated classical culture and developed it to its height and spread world wide.

Seriously though, modern day democracy and freedom has little to do with Greece, it had its roots in the Germanic traditions. In fact Greeks were in certain cases more similar to the middle east than the Germanic people.

Back to Top
HarryZhe View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 19-Dec-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HarryZhe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 10:12
I beg to differ. The invention of the stirrup would have been comparable to the invention of the assault rifle in modern times, imo.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1941
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 23:06
You ask an interesting question, Khan, one which has been answered by many scholars already. Pick up any book on Alexander or the Persian empire. What is truly baffling however is how Alexander still manages to hurt egos even today.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1044
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2008 at 02:46
One must also take into consideration that Philip The Great had reformed his military in such a way, that it was one which had never before been seen neither by Greeks or Persians. Before Philip's reign, the Macedonian army was composed of the nobility as calvary, and inexperianced peasant levies as infantry. So upon ascending the throne, he decided to train the infantry in a new theory of warfare. Instead of relying on peasant levies, Philip created a standing army, and fielded the infantry with lighter armor, and innovative weaponry, consisting of cornel wood pikes, and siege equipment. He also utilized the goldmines within his realm which enabled him to make it a requirement for every single able bodied male, to serve in the army as they were paid well.
 
Now if i was an enemy ruler, i wouldve at least taken note of what Philip was doing, and tried to match him by reforming my own armies. That way, i wouldve had a chance at defeating them. However, in Philip's case, neither Greece or Persia felt the need to do so, which is why both Greece and Persia were eventually conquered by both him and his son.
 
 


Edited by Penelope - 28-Sep-2008 at 03:11
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.