I mean, stoffi's comment is kind of a category error. Sparta was just a city-state, not a kingdom... it obviously doesn't come close to other powers in terms of size, military might etc. But like you say, real life longevity matters too - the Achaemenid empire lasted like 200 years, Sparta lasted for 700.
The Jerks.
Uh, "it obviously doesn't come close to other powers in terms of size, military might etc."Originally Posted by tetley
Sparta from ~650 BC until 371 BC was the single most formidable land power in the world though.
Map is not contemporary with the time of the expedition, as by 400 BC Persia had lost Cyprus and any foothold in the Balkans. Still, 10,000 Greek mercenaries under a Spartan general travelled half way across the Persian Empire, #rekt everything in their path, and then fought their way back home through hostile territory.
Sparta also won the Peloponnesian War against Athens, which at the time commanded an Empire that destroy the entire Persian Mediterranean fleet and defeated multiple Persian forces on the Ionian Coast without consequence.
I can't fathom why anybody would ever compare the Greek states to the Persian Empire. It is like comparing a thumb tack to a balloon...
Orientalist writing has done a very good job at downplaying the achievements of the "weak" persians. Suffice to say that Cyrus the Conqueror did pretty much what Alexander did, only 200 years earlier. If you look at the history it is striking that wider Iranian cultural zone has time and again been overrun by conquerors who managed to take control of the territory relatively quickly (Cyrus, Alexander, Arsaces I, Aradshir, Rashidun Caliphate, Timur Lenk, the Mongols etc.). History is full of tales of fringe people conquering their more "developed" neighbors. An interesting theory on this was posed in the Muqaddima by the 14th century historian Ibn Khaldun through the concept of Asabiyya or "solidarity".
Anyways, if we're talking about military strength there is no doubt neither the Greeks nor Persians would stand a chance against Zhao or Qin (especially after the reforms of Shang Yang). The various Chinese states fielded huge forces of both conscripts and professional soldiers. At the battle of Changping for instance close to a million soldiers were involved in the battling.
"rich bouquet of fail" lol
I also would love to see monarchs of top 20 kds on a chart like this :p
With the help of Persia and a massive blunder by Athens. It's not like they just marched in wrecked them or something lol
looks like a good place to drop a bomb... trump trump trumpUh, "it obviously doesn't come close to other powers in terms of size, military might etc."
Sparta from ~650 BC until 371 BC was the single most formidable land power in the world though.
Map is not contemporary with the time of the expedition, as by 400 BC Persia had lost Cyprus and any foothold in the Balkans. Still, 10,000 Greek mercenaries under a Spartan general travelled half way across the Persian Empire, #rekt everything in their path, and then fought their way back home through hostile territory.
Sparta also won the Peloponnesian War against Athens, which at the time commanded an Empire that destroy the entire Persian Mediterranean fleet and defeated multiple Persian forces on the Ionian Coast without consequence.
I can't fathom why anybody would ever compare the Greek states to the Persian Empire. It is like comparing a thumb tack to a balloon...
Disagree.
Disagree.
Last edited by khronosschoty; 21-04-2016 at 04:31.
#magi
Pillz seems to be proving both arguments I made but under the pretense of disagreeing with something I said.
A million soldiers battling would have been a sight to behold.
I think all monarchs should do a "player fail" quadrant and post them here. I'm constructing mine atm
The Jerks.
Dunno where you got that from. But we aren't discussing Cyrus vs. Alexander, but rather Sparta's prestige and position during classical antiquity. Cyrus never fought the Spartans, else he wouldn't be called the Great.
I agree the Persians are persistent, but I hope you're not referring to the Greeks as an undeveloped fringe people. Not to mention that 200 years without a Persian victory over Greeks since the Ionian Revolt is ridiculously embarrassing for what was undoubtedly the world's largest Empire to date.If you look at the history it is striking that wider Iranian cultural zone has time and again been overrun by conquerors who managed to take control of the territory relatively quickly (Cyrus, Alexander, Arsaces I, Aradshir, Rashidun Caliphate, Timur Lenk, the Mongols etc.). History is full of tales of fringe people conquering their more "developed" neighbors.
I don't know much about Chinese antiquity except they were like the last civilization on Earth to invent writing independently. But until 10,000 Chinese are shown to have bested an entire Empire the size and scale of Persia, I will stand by my statement.Anyways, if we're talking about military strength there is no doubt neither the Greeks nor Persians would stand a chance against Zhao or Qin (especially after the reforms of Shang Yang). The various Chinese states fielded huge forces of both conscripts and professional soldiers. At the battle of Changping for instance close to a million soldiers were involved in the battling.
Conversely, why would anybody believe the Chinese? I doubt they're much more reliable than the Greeks, Romans, or Persians when it comes to reporting troop strengths for large battles.
With the help of Persia and a massive blunder by Athens. It's not like they just marched in wrecked them or something lol
- Persia conquers Lydia and takes the Ionian Greek city states
- Athens instigates revolt against Persia and burns down the captial
- Persia invades Greece and gets BTFO
- Persia invades Greece and gets BTFO
- Greece ransacks Persia and Persian sympathizers along the Ionian Coast and in Thrace without notable resistence
- Athens defeated in Egypt by Persians, finally
- Athens destroys the entire Persian fleet without notable resistance
- Athens takes Cyprus - resistance is met!!! and pestilence strikes
- Greece has the bloodiest and most costly war in it's history (to that point) in the form of the Peloponnesian War (Persia backs both sides to weaken the Greek states)
- 10,000 Greeks ransack the Persian Empire for months on end
- Greece is subjugated by Macedonians (Greek barbarians)
- Greco-Macedonian Army obliterates Persia
Abridged version of Greco-Presian military history until the rise of the Parthians.... Pretty one-sided 200 years imo
Last edited by Pillz; 21-04-2016 at 17:59.
Tl:dr
Some say the movie 300 was not a Hollywood production but filmed by the romans! Bart was also walking around that time kicken persians ass.
The Greeks were a fringe people. Yes, the Persians did send expeditions to try to subdue them, but it was never more than a border-nuisance. It was a combination of internal troubles and unification under Macedon rulership that led to the hellenistic conquest, just as the Arabs were able to conquer their large Empire due to the fact both the Roman and Sasanian Empires were exhausted.I agree the Persians are persistent, but I hope you're not referring to the Greeks as an undeveloped fringe people. Not to mention that 200 years without a Persian victory over Greeks since the Ionian Revolt is ridiculously embarrassing for what was undoubtedly the world's largest Empire to date.
Size isn't all, population is what matters. Yes the achaemenid Empire was big, but its population wasn't.. It is true that Chinese civilization is "only" about 3000-3500 years old. Yes writing was invented later than in the fertile crescent.I don't know much about Chinese antiquity except they were like the last civilization on Earth to invent writing independently. But until 10,000 Chinese are shown to have bested an entire Empire the size and scale of Persia, I will stand by my statement.
Conversely, why would anybody believe the Chinese? I doubt they're much more reliable than the Greeks, Romans, or Persians when it comes to reporting troop strengths for large battles.
Your second point however is erroneous. The Chinese already were way ahead of anything the Middle East or the West could offer in the fields of administration and standardization. The Chinese already invented a form of pre-modern Fordism, whereby weapons and tools were mass produced. Each tool carried the signs that allowed the user to retrace it to the exact place it was fabricated, and when.
As said, the Greeks lived on the fringes of the "Perso-Iranian" world. The technology of the time simply did not allow the Empire to stretch out even further, as keeping it together in its current state was hard enough. The Empire was plagued by internal struggles and rebellions. It is therefore no wonder that Alexander's "Empire" fell apart right after his death. The Greeks were never a mortal threat to the Persians (who in their turn were just a minority ruling a kaleidoscope of different people).Abridged version of Greco-Presian military history until the rise of the Parthians.... Pretty one-sided 200 years imo
Hi peppie, Six years ago I was in a good KD and I would have been in the bottom right quad. Not for the reasons you posted. I was a clueless nub. I wanted everyone to match my activity. Log in 3-4 times per day. Army in/Army out, and posted such many times. I was too aggressive, and abusive.
I did not think about RL. School, jobs, children, rental units, even pets. Also we only had 21 provs and fought good KDs of 25. We also had 2-3 ppl in vacation at all times as most KDs do. We wound up 4/3 in WW. I was a normal mate oow, I only ranted during wars. I was asked to leave eoa cause of the drama. Another casualty of clueless nub syndrome. Thats too bad as they were the best KD I was ever in and we would have been better the next age...
t00t, you don't know what ya got til its gone
ps isn't Greece the lowest standard of living in all of Europe?
Exactly how Iranian-centric are you trying to be here?
Pic related is the Mediterranean and Asia Minor prior to Cyrus' conquests. Illyrians, Thracians, and Dacians were full barbarians. Noticed the extent of Greek colonization. Persia took all of Anatolia, some of the Black Sea, some of Thrace, the Levant, and Egypt. Greece thus sat on the fringe only by virtual of remaining independent.
I can't be ****ed to find it now, but evidence of Mycenaean settlements(c. 1600 - 1100 BC) were present in Italy, Sicily, Sardina, and Spain as well as the Ionian Coast. During 1300-1200 BC at least an Mycenaean citadel was waging war against the Hittites. So they weren't even a fringe military power in their infant stage...
Until the Medes/Persians moved west ward (Lydia, Phoenicia, Egypt, Babylon) their primary conquests consisted of mountain goat ****ers.
Lulz. Are you being serious? The Persians committed considerable resources to subduing Athens (their issue was with Athens). The two successively largest invasions in history to that point, in fact. Destroying your capital, entire fleet, and ransacking your holdings for 100+ years seems like a significant 'nuisance'.Yes, the Persians did send expeditions to try to subdue them, but it was never more than a border-nuisance.
Well, internal troubles are bound to happen when your eastern provinces revolt bi-annually and your western border is open to attack on the whim of some fringe peoples lulIt was a combination of internal troubles and unification under Macedon rulership that led to the hellenistic conquest
Wikipedia says a low estimate of 17 million, I admittedly have never read any scholarly sources dealing with the Persian Empire's population, but since they controlled 3 of the most fertile zones in the Near East/Eastern Med I doubt they didn't have a very large population.Size isn't all, population is what matters. Yes the achaemenid Empire was big, but its population wasn't.
When was this, because the Greeks were already applying this technique to the construction of their temples and public works to monitor worksmanship and manage payroll. But good on the Chinese for implementing another layer of bureaucracy to the conscription process. Anything to inch out a little more quality.Your second point however is erroneous. The Chinese already were way ahead of anything the Middle East or the West could offer in the fields of administration and standardization. The Chinese already invented a form of pre-modern Fordism, whereby weapons and tools were mass produced. Each tool carried the signs that allowed the user to retrace it to the exact place it was fabricated, and when.
Persians shoulda smartened up and cut the Bactrians, would have saved them trouble and maybe saved their Empire.The technology of the time simply did not allow the Empire to stretch out even further, as keeping it together in its current state was hard enough. The Empire was plagued by internal struggles and rebellions. It is therefore no wonder that Alexander's "Empire" fell apart right after his death.
Alexander's Empire disintegrated for purely political reasons. To say otherwise is purely speculative. There can also be no comparison drawn between Alexander's Empire and the Seleucid when discussing the Asian territories, because of fundamental differences in Alexander and Seleucus' management and vision (in case you go there).
To say the Greeks were no threat to the Persians when the Greeks repeatedly and unequivocally #rekt them and finally conquered and subjugated them is laughable.
And the point I made originally was that, for it's time, say 650 BC until 371 BC, Sparta was the single most formidable land power in the known world. You've yet to successfully refute this.
Last edited by Pillz; 21-04-2016 at 23:00.
While I generally agree with you, there's a few things that make this just generally tough to refute, but not necessarily true
1. You haven't really given a definition of what "most formidable land army" actually entitles or how to measure a land army's greatness. Battles won? Size of the empire? Longevity?
2. Sparta's most direct competition (Athens) had a completely different type of army, so any victories over them or defeats suffered doesn't equate to having a more formidable land army.
3. Victories/defeats themselves aren't necessarily a display of who has a more formidable army. The United States most had a less formidable army than Great Britain, but we still won. There are tons of historical examples of the "underdogs" beating the mighty empires. The issues are usually outside stuff like economies, terrain knowledge, ect, which even further mucks up any "Who has the baddest army in the world" talks
4. Could the Spartans have beaten the Chinese? Or the Gaul? Or Egypt? Any argument for or against is pure conjecture so nothing is really "proof"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
