Greatest Ancient Military Power

That's my point - luck on the Greek side. Look at Marathon!

Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator That's my point - luck on the Greek side. Look at Marathon!

What lucky thing happened during Marathon??? Greeks advanced in slow pace and accelerated abruptly when Persian let loose their arrows causing them to miss and not have time to reload. Then in the melee the sides managed to repell their enemies and help the center that was really battered. Then they pursuited the rest Persians and fought their rearguard in order to stop their retreat but failed having more casualties than in the actual battle

Originally posted by Vorian I believe the Persians lost because, as Sun Tzu said, you should never advance relying on military might alone. I don't think for a second that the Persians were uncivilized barbarians, but I do think that Cyrus "the great" won his empire by trickery and intimidation.  Very clever and effective ways of forming a giant empire, but it does not make for great warriors to defend it. Logistical ability does not equal battlefield coordination.  Just because their men may have been well supplied, doesn't mean they were well disciplined in battle or fought in effective formations.  History has shown this to be the case, has it not? The Persian parts of the army would surely be extremely disciplined and the Medans as well. many others wouldn't though. However you can't call Greek armies "disciplined" either unless you speak of the Spartans. At that time (before the Peloponnesian war) war was more ceremonial in Greece when the armies of a neighbor city would meet the other in a field organised from before and crush their phalanxes against each other. The one who won took the disputed lands etc. Organised Greek armies became the norm during the Peloponnesian war not before.

Any army that used the phalanx formation was disciplined.  Do you think you could just grab a gaggle of men and put them into an effective phalanx?  Despite the fact war between Greek states was ceremonial, wars against outside influences (and there were a few) were not.

The fact that Greek armies of the time (Spartans aside) were raised from the populous does not mean they did not have military training. 

I think a definition of "discipline" in this context is needed.  I refer to the use of effective formations to prevent a numerically superior enemy from simply overrunning your position, and the training this would require to ensure that it actually worked.  If you mean "charge all at once when the horn is blown" then the Persians probably were quite disciplined.

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin Any army that used the phalanx formation was disciplined.  Do you think you could just grab a gaggle of men and put them into an effective phalanx?  Despite the fact war between Greek states was ceremonial, wars against outside influences (and there were a few) were not. The fact that Greek armies of the time (Spartans aside) were raised from the populous does not mean they did not have military training.  I think a definition of "discipline" in this context is needed.  I refer to the use of effective formations to prevent a numerically superior enemy from simply overrunning your position, and the training this would require to ensure that it actually worked.  If you mean "charge all at once when the horn is blown" then the Persians probably were quite disciplined.

Mate, the usual training for a Greek hoplite was during his time in the army before he gets 20 (of course varied in every city) and after that maybe some training every summer for 2-3 weeks. That's why many phalanxes broke before contact with the enemy.

Now about Persians, you give them too little credit. Persian cavalry would perform really difficult maneuvers in battle encircling the opponent, throwing javelins, giving pursue to those that fled. Traditional Persian tactic was to swarm the enemy with arrows until he is weakened enough and demoralised to break from the attack of the cavalry. They were using combined arms when the Greeks knew only infantry and a few slaves throwing rocks and javelins. When the Greeks learned the value of combined arms, they conquered most of the known world.

I agree Greeks were very skilled warriors. Maybe the their traditional tactics, personal heroisms, strategic minds and all in all their "skill" in all things military surpasses Romans(and everyone in the Ancient times maybe).

But the question was not "who were the most skillful fighters?" Who had the most powerful army in the period? Who WAS the GREATEST military power?

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin I  If they had had the organisational skills and sheer bloody-mindedness of the Romans, the Greeks could easily have been the rulers of ancient Europe, far earlier than the Romans.

But they haven't been.... Romans had what it takes. Organizational skills and ability to maintain social peace are also factors that makes you a Great military power.

Romans military superiority over Greeks was in their hybrid system not only in the tactics. In Greece, lower classes did fight yes, but they provided cheap units. The most powerful units were maintained(and formed) by upper classes. And the were few in numbers.

But Rome, in the early republican period, mostly solved the conflicts of plebians and patricians. After plebians were recruited in the legions by masses Rome had the largest  qualified standing army ever. Being recruited in the legions and ascending in ranks were improving your life and rights as a Roman citizen. Plebians spent years in the army unlike any other lower class militia. And became experienced warriors, formed strong units with their sheer numbers. The mob fought and died for Roman Senatus.

Greek aristocracy and free people fought for themselves. They have nearly never formed a professional standing force. Simply every able young man was a warrior.(Ephebos) The took good training yes but not having a professional standing army you have a hard time conquering or/and keeping the lands you conquered. Alexander was an exception. Even he faced oppositions of his army to move further into India. Arrianos narrates the incident.

his soldiers told him they will not go further, they don't want to die so far away from home, before they cherished their victories and fortunes of war.

Alexander replied: "I am staying and moving further into India. You can go home and tell there that you left your king in an alien country by himself"(this is not exact but very close) :))) such an attitude he needed :)

Heroic yes, but few. Never could form a vast and long living Empire like Rome.

Btw, on the poll itself:

I haven't voted nor will I for a simple reason. The ancient period spans form Egypt and Assyria to 300AD.

Assyrians were the best of their time, and so were Babylonians, Persians and Greeks and then Romans. Romans went though many phases, the early republican army is nothing in front of the marian army that we know from the movies. In other words, create another poll giving a less extended timeline.

The Persian army has been wholly under estimated due to the fact that most of our sources come from Greek authors and the Achemenid's collapse during Alexander's conquest.  Nobody conquers that large of a land area and hold it for several hundred years by being military enept.

Actually Herodotus remarks on the bravery of the Persian troops many times.

Originally posted by Vorian The Persian army has been wholly under estimated due to the fact that most of our sources come from Greek authors and the Achemenid's collapse during Alexander's conquest.  Nobody conquers that large of a land area and hold it for several hundred years by being military enept. Actually Herodotus remarks on the bravery of the Persian troops many times.

Wasn't that in reference to Alexander's conquest, specifically the battle of the Persian Gates?

But yes, I think the Persians probably were brave, but just not very good!

well...I think the poll is very biased, and focuses on nations from diferent periods of time, but anyway I went for Romans, I think that while dicsipline was the trademark of any decent army, the Romans had a unique quality, adaptability, they learned from their enemies, adopted whatever worked, ditched anything useless,  army composition, armor, weapons, tactics, and used it themselves, it is in deed a fantastic quality.

It is Interesting, I was reading Flavius, Vegetius Renatus' "Epitoma Rei Militaris" which has a sentence saying: O, the mighty Emperor of Rome and whole Earth, tell me which of Northern nations are weaker than us in battlefield? - I'd say none. Tell me which of Southern nations are less smarter than us in war? - I'd say none. Name me any roman that is stronger than Spanish or than Lakedemonians!? But then, you might as, mighty Emperor, howcome you can control all of those nations mentioned above? Has not Mars itself was born in Dacia? Then why, my Emperor it happens so that our armies crash all of its enemies? - The answer is discipline and traning. This is the answer. Because true Romans know how to chose new soldiers and what to teach them in order for them to have the ability to fight with all enemies under all sircumstances.

That makes me believe that Roman military "school" was even stronger than Chinese and it is also interesting that even during the times of Republic (as far back as 200 B.C.), except discussions in Senate, various articles regarding military issue were being publish by various militarymen and statesman and there were always information war and debates that resulted with improvement of the military job.