Why did the Persians have such bad equipment during the wars with the Greeks? You get several classical sources that stated that Hoplites fighting Persian troops were almost like fighting unarmed men, that their weapons and armor were so useless in close combat that they might not have existed.
Why?
I mean, the Achaemenids had a lot of population and a lot of wealth to draw upon. How come they couldn't make bronze armor like the much smaller, poorer Greeks?
Who was writing these sources?
>>363275
Why did the Persians have such bad equipment during the war with the Iraq (the 1980's one) and still managed to hold their own?
Because Persia heavily prioritized cavalry.
>>363407
It's not like cavalrymen didn't wear armor though. Hell, in a lot of eras cavalry wore heavier armor than the infantry.
>>363410
I'm assuming that "Persian troops" are referring mostly to infantry, which were pretty much peasant levy-tier from what I've read. And hoplites would have had tremendous advantages against cavalry, too.
Cause it was mostly israelites, mesopotamians, phoencians, egyptians, arabs and other cannon fodder making up their infantry since most actual persian soldiers were only trained for mounted combat and had to sit on the sidelines or act as support archers with the few light infantrymen they had carrying wicker shields.
Persians have had no problem dealing with hoplites prior to the invasion when could fully utilize their cavalry.
Just look at Persian-Lydian war when even Sparta and Athens sent support to Croesus in his campaign against Cyrus the Great but ultimately failed.
For that reason they felt that they had no need to adapt a heavy infantry, which was ultimately a mistake but they didnt know it.
>>363417
yes, which is why the ionian revolt was a roaring success.
>>363432
And then later, in the Delian League wars, the Hoplites beat the Persians on their home turf, in the open against Persian cavalry.
Clearly, they weren't invincible there either.
>>363439
>in the open against Persian cavalry
Too be fair, most battles took place either on different greek islands, cyprus, the sea or coastal areas of Anatolia.
I'll give you Egypt though, but that place was already planning a revolt so we have no idea how many persians were there to begin with.
A better example when the Persian bubble of supremacy popped would have been the Battle of Cunaxa.
>>363457
Yeah, but at Cunaxa, you had significant Persian forces on each side. Xenophon says the Greeks carried the day, and he's probably right, but this wasn't a pure Greek Phalanx tramping across the fields against whatever the Persians could throw at it. Even having a few light forces to guard the vulnerable rear meant a lot.
>>363463
>but this wasn't a pure Greek Phalanx tramping across the fields against whatever the Persians could throw at it.
But it was, they divided the army into two wings and the greek side was pretty much crushing whatever Artaxerxes threw at them and managed to march around the battlefield and get back to the start with one guy wounded, only to find out that Cyrus the Younger had died.
While the original planned outcome went moot this actually showed Agesilaus II, the King of Sparta at the time that they werent invincible. So he started his campaign against them and went into Asia minor and raised hell until the satrap there had to fund the Athenians and help them rebuild their numbers which led to the Corinthian war.
