• the genius of greek/macedonians leaders
• the  supriority of greek/macedonian warfare
• decentalization of Persian Empire 

Easily its internal corruption, decadence, in-fighting and the lack of unity to actually confront the Greeks and Macedonians when on Persian and Iranian soil.

And besides, in 490-479 BC, the Persians were still at the height of their power, during the Persian invasion of Greece. And they still lost to a bunch of puny squabbling city states.

The weakness of the Persian empire military system was evident ever since Xanophon and his 10000 hoplites, without any cavalry or archers, were able to first defeat a whole wind of the Persian army at the battle of Cunaxa with not even one fatality and then escape from the heart of the Persian empire defeating all armies that were send against them. read the whole Anabasis here: http://www.earth-history.com/Greece/greece-xenophon-anabasis-preface.htm - http://www.earth-history.com/Greece/greece-xenophon-anabasis -preface.htm

Learning from this Agesilaus of Sparta ( http://www.e-classics.com/AGESILAUS.html - http://www.e-classics.com/AGESILAUS.html ) was able to attack Persia and conquer all of Asia Minor coast (and plunder it as well) before he was obliged to return to Greece to face fellow-Greeks in battle.

Later on when the Greeks were united under Philip and later his son Alexander, they were able to go in for the kill. Persia was ripe for the picking.

WOW!!!    That was impressing!

Talking about history revisionism...

Btw, do you have something against gay people?

jamshidi_f

You are cracking me up, man! You are great! Keep them coming, yo!

I don't know where to begin.  This theory is definitely controversial and appears to fly in the face of historical and archaeological records. 

I guess I should start by asking you for your sources.  You mentioned in another thread that Persepolis wasn't burned and about a 'pseudo-Alexander'.   What are your sources for this?

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.

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.

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!

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 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

As we know that horsed units such as cavalry played a significant role in the military culture of early Iranics, Achamenids were no exception but as we understood of the accounts of battles such as Guagamala as an example of the late Achaemenid, apart from the nature of a disorderly army composed of mercenaries, although cavalry were important, we see no brilliance as from the part of the cavalry. Comparing this with the quoted cavalry brilliance of the Parthians and Sassanids in many Roman accounts we can conclude that Achaemenids didn't pay heed to this matter like Parthians for instance. Another mysterious point is the defeat of the Darius I at hands of Scythians, this also to some extent shows that Scythians were superior in terms of employing cavalry and Achaemenids somehow receded from this old Iranian tradition of warmongering. (also considering the fact that one of the main reasons of their defeat was fighting in the enemy's ground far away from supplies and home). 

The importance of this is despite Macedo-Greek warfare development which was a substantial factor in defeating Achaemenids, Phalanx regiments actually faced major problems fighting Parni (Parthian) and Scythian cavalry especially their horse-archers, whose fighting style was more Iranian than Achaemenids, the thing which led in the overthrowing of the two Macedo-Greek Kingdoms in eatern lands of Alexander's empire (i.e. Seleucid empire and the powerful Greek Bactrian kingdom). 

To my mind, it was all a matter of superior military doctrin for the greeks, and the inner decay of the Persian empire.

Actually from the military point of view it is true that Macedonian army of Alexander was a formidable force but one shouldn't forget that military prowess expected from the Persians was not the same as the early Achamenians. But this militray prowess rendered unsuccssful when the powerful Greek kingdom of Bactria despite of resistence ceased to exist in front battle style of the Iranian and Yuezi horsemen.

Another factor, one that perhaps hasn't been mentioned. Greek soldiers were well-versed with the battle tactics and strategies of the Persians. Many of them, or their friends, or their relatives had fought as mercenaries in the Persian army. You could even say that many of them were Memnon-wannabes. They knew by heart the expected behaviour of their opponents, they knew on the back of their hand how and where the Persians would move.

Ok Son, tell us then. We'd like to know. I, for one, besides being a neutral observer, am always eager to learn and share. You didn't read my earlier post about the Persians putting up a tough fight, did you?

That's most enlightening, Son. So, Darius III had the bigger army. He even managed to manipulate Alexander to move to a place he wanted, the way he wanted. And he still lost the battle.