![1280px-Kaulbach%2C_Wilhelm_von_-_Die_Seeschlacht_bei_Salamis_-_1868[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Rl7qMMo.jpg "1280px-Kaulbach%2C_Wilhelm_von_-_Die_Seeschlacht_bei_Salamis_-_1868[2].jpg")
So how exactly Greece was able to defend against Persia which was able to field 300k soldiers but got conquered by Rome?
>>1333271
>300K
What are you talking about? The Achaemenid Empire had a standing national army of maximum 120,000.
It was the Romans who were closer to 350,000 at their greatest extent.
>believing greek propaganda
1. The number was substantial but not that large
2. Strategically, it's far easier to defend than conquer
3. Darius and Xerxes were literal retards who thought spamming their enemies with troops was a foolproof strategy, and the Greeks used that retardation to their advantage
>>1333271
Oh yeah dude, there were like 1,000 Persians to each dude, shit was insaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaane!
>wait, there were 300,000 guys vs 300, and you won?
....
Yes.
>>1333271
Persian troops were mostly conscripts with few of the highly trained Immortals fielded in battle, and Greeks consistently fielding professional soldiers.
The Greeks would also usually avoid battles if the terrain wasn't to their advantage, often luring Persian units into positions that favored the Greeks such as at Marathon.
The Romans however had a much tougher time conquering Greece than what is told in your typical history book, which focus much more on the Punic Wars running concurrent with the Macedonian Wars. It took the Romans 150 years and 4 major wars to overcome the Macedonians, with Macedon winning 2 of those wars.
But Rome's advantage was much the same as Greece against Persia, fielding their fully trained and professional legions against lesser trained Greek Phalanxes.
Both militaries made for some bloody wars, but Rome eventually won out through the strength of the legions and considerably more wealth than the Macedonians.
>>1333271
Because Romans didn't conquer Greeks. There was no great invasion of Greece or something.
They fought their Macedonian Hegemons, Curbstomped the Achaean League and its head: Corinth, and sweet-talked the rest with promises of protection from pirates, Macedonians, each other. The famous Greek states of Athens? Sparta? They weren't besieged, they just signed themselves under Roman rule.
Roman Diplomatic Corps are severely underrated by popular history. Everyone sees the Meme Legions when in reality the diplomats did much of the work of expanding the hegemony via threats of violence/protection racketeering/plain diplomatic cunning.
>>1333976
>Persian troops were mostly conscripts
Herodotus please leave
Persian troops were a mix of tribal warriors, mercenaries, and professional fighters from all of its component nations. The native Persian soldier himself was a member of the military class of soldiers who were given small plots of land to free themselves for fighting. They were feudally raised by their Satraps and gathered in regiments with a specific color of uniform.
The Immortals were merely the King's personal Infantry Army and trained similarly like his professional buddies in other Satrapal Armies. The real elite bodyguard of the King was the Khûveshâvagânê, which means "Kinsmen" and were cavalrymen consisting of sons of Persian nobles.
>>1333998
>professional fighters
The so called "professionals" were wearing pyjamas and shields made out of Wool. No wonder the greeks beat them.
>>1335654
This is Gilbert Islander warrior with coconut fiber armor and shark tooth sword.
The Persian soldiers often had iron scale armor under their pajamas.
>>1335830
Not him, and new to the thread, but could you please explain something to me?
I'm aware that "pop history" portrays the Hellenic-Persian wars as a bunch of Greek hoplites in vastly superior equipment stabbing through a bunch of vastly inferior armed and armored Persian warriors, first on the defensive in Greece where their mobility didn't help them much, but then going on to counterattack in things like the wars of the Delian league and Xenophon's march, even before you have Alexander sweeping through and trampling everything.
And I've seen people rebut various images of the "standard" persian soldier. That he wasn't a conscript. That he wasn't equipped in rags and a bow so weak it could barely do anything. etc.
But the Persians did have a hell of a tough time with the Greeks, and not just in Greece itself, that's pretty clear. And Greece did have a relatively tiny population, probably less wealth per capita, and Spartans excepted, were fighting primarily with militias that were in it for plunder.
If the Persians did have comparable arms and armor, and had arguably superior levels of training, and could field way larger armies with a deeper range of combined arms, why did they keep losing a lot more than they were winning?
