Incorrect, the roman empire and han dynasty were roughly equal in size and population.  ~35-60 million.

 

They didn't really field an army, they used guerilla/hit and run tactics and tried to fight from afar using bows.

 

I'm surprised how little respect the Egyptians get. They were the first imperialist empire and used methods of warfare that gave them a big edge against the Nubians and Semites. The organization, and not to mention the first conscription service, was amazing for its time. When the Assyrians arose against the Egyptians at Meggido 20 Assyrian kings surrendered as the Egyptians army crushed an uprising that would normally destroy an empire.

 

The forerunner of the romans is how I view them, take the knowledge of other cultures and improve upon that, military innovators and just the way they dominated their opponents for so long, also the way they governed through vassals or clients like the early principate.  The first military superpower of the fertile crescent.  Their influence whether direct, indirect or speculative on the military advancements of other cultures; cavalry and siege techniques have been mentioned, is there a connection between the assyrian phalanx and the greek?  Intriguing. 

 

True, the Assyrians were very militaristic and advanced in military tactics. They did have many clashes with the Egyptians such as Meggido. They were feirce, ruthless, and very feared among the Middle East.

 

A roman army in 400 BCE is not an equal of a Spartan Army of the same time period.  Consequently, a Hellinistic army of the 1st century BCE is not equal to a Roman army of the same time period. 

 

 

 

 

Hunnic Empire

 

 

 

 

 

Parthian Empire (Pink)

 

 

 

 

The Parthian Empire extended further east than the Hunnic Empire did, as seen above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scythia also had borders extending to the Himalayan mountains.

 

 

 

 

Lydia was able to assemble large quantities of cavalry. Their horsemen were some of the best of their time period, as they were well trained, and given a long lance to charge down enemy troops. The Lydian army had hoplites of their own, a challenge to any army that opposed them. The empire was also an empire of diplomacy. In addition to the cavalry and hoplites, there were infantry from Egypt, Babylonian archers, and European swordsmen.

 

 

Lydian infantry

 

 

All armies listed were in different places in different times doing different things.

 

What criteria do you have for comparison ?

 

Of course, if just want to say how good your favourite was, fine.

 

Please feel free to track down as many of my threads as you wish. You probably won't find any more for this thread but you might on two others of a similar ilk. Whre I may say I got a much more courteous reply agreeing with me 

 

if it so meaningless leave  the topic...and leave alone those who want dispute about "meaningless" thing...

 

Go to Google Images and type in Sassanid war elephant, it is the first picture.

Yes, but don't forget that the only reason that Carthage on land didn't do as well is because Hannibal did not have the forces that he started with in Spain. He had to use a great deal of foreign irregulars from Gaul which were second-rate to the forces that he had at his disposal initially. Rome had never really needed to combat naval forces before since most of it's fighting was largely over large tracts of land in southern Italy. Moreover, I believe that Ostia was only build in the Principate, and the other stragetically important ports were secured as late as the Sertorian/Social and later Samnite wars. That said, it's imporant to realise that we are contrasting Carthage's naval forces with unexperienced Roman ones. Since we don't have that much evidence for previous Carthaginian naval operations, we can't really draw many conclusions as to the absolute power of Carthaginian naval power. Moreover, it is widely known that the Phoneician navy was much more powerful than that of the Greeks, and that was one of the reasons why the fleet decided to conceal itself in the narrows during the battle of Salamis because they knew how much Phoneicians could utilise their seamanship in open sea. Just because Carthage was a state that was founded by phonecians, that does not neccesarily entail that they had the power that the phoenicians were reputed to have at Salamis and in other conflicts. However, one could also say that the edge that the Carthaginian navy had over the Roman-employed Greek one in the punic wars, and the many Carthaginian settlements in Spain, which were martime based, does give your reading some weight. We must not neglect the land power of Carthage over her navy, and I am probably moving away from convention by not always using Hannibal or Maharbal as a template for what I am going to say (lol). Remember the example of Gelo in the first few books of Herodotus of Helicaranoss's histories? He puts considerable emphasis on Carthaginian land power in Italy. The Roman army that we all seem to be inclinded to Stereotype came in 104 BC with the Marian reforms, and was later perfected in the principate. The forces that were fighting under the Roman banner in Cannae and Trasiremene were still not one of the best fighting forces in the ancient world. Other states had invested in multi-purpose troops before (Antiochus IV?) and so when we analyse Rome and Carthage together militarily we've got to stop thinking of post-Marian troops. It was only at the end of the 2nd Punic war at the battle of Zama that Scipio moved away from convention by not adhering to the traditional Hastati-Pricipates-Triarii maniple model, and it was a few years later after the treaty of Phonice in the second Macedonian war in the battle of Cynocephale in 197 BC that the abilities of the legionary can be glimpsed to be seen growing. 

 

It's a common misconception that Greece had always been a maritime power - in the early classical, Geometric, archaic, Mycenean and Cycladic periods, it was almost exclusively Megaron palace culture based and was not intrinsically based around martime operations at all. The phonecians, in contrast, had been part of the the commerical backbone of the ancient near east from the Neo-Sumerian period. Excavations near Tyre by Leonard Wooley in the 1920s revealed powerful commerical settlements which date back to around 2000 BC - almost all of which were situated next to the coasts on known maritime trade routes. In contrast, many of the largest Greek cities such as Athens and Sparta actually were built in places where internal natural resources - what few there were in Greece - could be extracted. It was only in the 4th century BC that some of these states began to build their own ports (such as the Pireaus harbour in Athens) and exploit the trade routes which Greece settled in. Moreover, it was only when Athenian miners struck a sliver vein that they managed to finance naval might, and even then Archon Strategos Thermistocles had to convince them to do so. As for the colonies in the medditeranian, many of these were founded by Ionian Greeks, and many were made when Greeks fled the Persian invasion and earlier incursions by the Lydians. Teos is a good example - soon after the Ionian revolt, the people of Teos sunk a large block of iron into their harbour and stated that they would only return when the block surfaced, and they fled to Italy. Moreover, Cambyses used Phonecian naval power in his ill-fated invasion of Egypt and one of the reasons why he eventually withdrew was because the Phoenecian sailors refused to partake in the invasion. Therefore, with all of these factors, the Phonecian navy had infinately more experience than the Greek.

 

Polybius wrote, "more exercised in maritime affairs than any other people". Polybius also wrote that the Carthaginian ships carried hooks to attack the oars and fire to burn the enemy vessals by the time of the Third Punic War. There is evidence that Hanno sailed along the African coast, to as far distances as the equator.

 

My point concerning the Carthaginians was not that they were not able sailors; it was more that to proove that they were by comparing them to the Romans is probably a little flawed by the points above that I mentioned.

The Carthaginian fleet, no matter what the Roman status, managed to defeat the Roman fleets. I never said the Carthaginian fleet was the best. The Carthaginian fleet was powerful, it was capable of defending trade routs, and fighting other naval fleets.

 

Cambyses was succesful in Egypt, it was not ill-fated. The Arab tribes assisted Cambyses when his army crossed the deserts between Mesopotamia and Egypt. The fleet was not the only thing that kept his army moving. In fact, the Arabs might of proved more useful than the fleet.

 

Yes! And that is my point - that one of the reasons that the Greeks hid in the shallows was because the Persians would use this decimating and effective tactic. It was also used in the Peloponnesian wars when Athens had rennovated its Navy - Phormio's blockade at Naupactus against Corinth, for example. Also, the Persians were aware of the Greek fleet in the shallows because disputably, they heard the Paean of the sailors before they saw the shallows. Moreover, there cannot have been that many Persian ships at Salamis because:

A.) the Persian patrol vessels and small fort on a nearby island didn't see that much debris floating out of the straight

B.) there were not enough coves to beach all of the Persian ships that were supposedly there (apparently Persian ships were beached at "combat ready" stations before the battle.

C.) the numerical gap can't have been that great because Xerxes wanted to press as quickly as possible down to the Peloponnese, and it's more likely that he left a sizeable chunk of his fleet to guard Salamis while the rest went to the Peloponnese and the Saronic gulf. It's just not plausable that when Athens had been decimated and the Persians had the situation under control that Xerxes would have left the majority of his forces there. It doesn't add up and many historians have disputed the claims in Herodotus

 

Cambyses was succesful in Egypt, it was not ill-fated. The Arab tribes assisted Cambyses when his army crossed the deserts between Mesopotamia and Egypt. The fleet was not the only thing that kept his army moving. In fact, the Arabs might of proved more useful than the fleet.

 

Good point - Egypt is hard to attack by sea, as Perdiccias - regent of Alexander IV in the first succession war - learnt. However, naval power was still important in blockading and exerting economic pressure against the enemy (Operations by Cleon in Egypt for example?). Moreover, although the Arab tribes would have been useful, at the end of the day we can't speculate because all Cambyses managed to secure was a small garrison near the elephantine.

However, I have to remind you that the Macedonians developed Alexander's world conquering Phalanx at the time of Philip II, and therefore the Greeks did not posess it (nor Pyrrhus' elephants) for a considerably large amount of time. Therefore, your logic cannot be applied to classical Greeks in any meaningful sense.

 

Good point, and also the Macedonian Kingdom had reached a stage of innovation that had never been seen before in history. Not only did her inhabitants know this, but most importantly, her generals and her king knew this, which in turn gave them the confidence they needed to unite Greece, Illyria and Thrace. They knew that they were more advanced than their enemies, both militarily and economicly, so conquering Persia didnt seem too far fetched to begin with, even if Persia had not experianced an internal conflict.

 

Totally disagree with you here.

 

The Greeks knew about organisation, but the Persians did as well. Saying an Empire that stretches from India to the Sahara has bad organisational skills is pretty far fetched. The Persians were the masters when it came to military organisation and even in other economic and political forms.

 

Well, much of it was actually due to luck - the "Persians" didn't have a single exlusive military unit, but had a vastly multi-cultural army with many different kinds of forces, as well as many Greek mercenary hoplites, peltasts and psiloi. The kind of troops that everyone stereotypically thinks are "persian" are the apple bearers and medes, but in reality, the troops that served under the "archenemid" dynasty were extremely diverse, and so we cannot generalise in such a manner. Frankly, in many respects, a lot of the fact that the Greeks won was because of luck and, as with any powerful monarch with a large empire, other commitments in other parts of the empire. People also forget that when they say "the Persians never conquered Greece", they are actually stating a complete falsehood - "Greece" and the Hellenic areas of that area of the world were ravaged by the Persians - for gods, sake - Athens was sacked three times! When people say this, they usually mean the Peloponnese. The Persians had a constant foothold in Thrace and in many respects, Northern Greece, but couldn't maintain it because of other commitments. Therefore the Greeks did not "defeat" the Persians in the manner which people state.

 

That is a simplistic and flawed explanation of what a combined arms army operate.   Terrain dictates your tactics and arms.  The holite army is good as long as it fights in a terrain that gives it suites it. 

 

Combined arms creates what is known as synergy.  Where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  

 

Here are some examples of the era.

 

1.)  Macedonian Phalanx and Companion Cavalry

2.)  Horse Archers and Armored Cataphracts

3.)  Crossbowmen and Halbearders/pikeman

 

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. 

 

Very good point indeed. But since China was never conquered by Rome, we will never know what the outcome would have been. The chinese may have been able to repell them, had they attempted an invasion, who knows, especially when you take into consideration that the Roman Empire, at its greatest extent, was still smaller than the empire of China. Not saying that size really matters though lol.