F****** hell. This is golden.

I Suggest you to Study more Detail of Greece History!! Becouse its full off Brainwashed Story and Thoose Credit Go for Albanians Tribes (Antienc one i mean) . Dude Even the (So Called Anticity Books if their own, Like Herodotus Ptolemy Tukiditi etc etc Agree with One Term) Greeks are different From Other Tribes they Lived !! 😉 The True Descendants of Bryge, Labeates, Ilyrian, Pelasgians are Today (Albanian People) I have Fact's about this that Greece Country and other Country (Skllavs) Keep Hidden from the Truth. Thnx if you Pay some Serious Attention to my Comment. 😉

@@elbasanalbania How about, no.

@@RonaldTrumpOfficial Then you Deside to Stay Brainwashed. Don't worry Soon everything will come to Light. Greek Bullshet will end Soon. 😉😉

Not many admit to how luck and fate play such an important part in all our lives! Great video and history break down bar none!

Spot on, the Greek way..

The joke only works if they stopped disliking each other while they were fighting a common enemy. It also only works if they actually did get together and decide to fight a common enemy (which they didn't, not really) It also only works if they have a common enemy. The Persians were there largely for the Athenians, and everyone else knew this. This is why half of Greece sided with the Persians, many of whom fought against the rest at Plataea and other battles.The southern Greeks, who were the anti-Persian group of states, were not united in a common goal. Many of them wanted to build a wall across the Pellopanese and wait the whole thing out (after Athens burned, and the Athenians retreated) The Athenians effectively exhorted them into the battle of Plataea. (not all together unlike the battle of Salamis, supposedly) All the while they still hated each other. Meanwhile everyone is waiting for the Spartans to stop waiting for the gods to give them a sign. GOOD JOKE.

Dayz 3O6 Balkans on a nutshell after winning against Ottomans

Tfw Rome gives Greek independence and they IMMEDIATELY fall into civil war. , 😂

The Americans: "Ok China is getting out of hand, human rights violations, HK protests, copyright law etc. Lets put our differences aside and curb their influence" 2 months later "so about that impeachment"

that's why the Greek victory is great, because the opponent was great

It was 1 million soldiers and 1 million civilians in that army, but most modern historians tend to underestimate ancient peoples and sources, even though Herodotus is proven right again and again.

@@real_orestis_georgiou Yeah. Herodetus also said that the Scythians fought one eyed crazy bogeymen. How exactly could the Persians get 100000 soldiers? Out of their a***es?

@@owaisqureshi4576 The Persians had a vast empire and the most populous regions of earth. They demanded soldiers from all the peoples in their empire and back then almost all men were warriors, not like now. The reason many modern historians disbelief is that they doubt they could sustain such great forces. But the Persians were very sophisticated, contrary to modern disbelief. Historians also believed that the canal on mount Athos was a myth, until it was proven with modern technology that it exists beneath the ground.

The Persians could have used the Dagger of Time.

funny thing is, when Alexander the Macedonian attacked Persia, the Greek supported the latter more than him! at first at least anyway ... and Alexander loved Cyrus the Great of Persia's leadership style ... he wanted to be like him ... he even had some support inside Persia because the Persian Achamenid regime was declining rapidly due to political corruption in the court ...

@dergerät most historical records show that the Achamenids were already a corrupt regime! it's how human nature and absolute power works, anywhere in any culture ... empires are not built to last really! they bring profits as long as they are in power and they still bring more profits to whomever built them when the latter destroys empires!

@pericles yes that's what he's called in history as some others are called, like Cyrus The Great of Persia and so on ... but i don't quite get why you said that? what did i mean where?

I mean to this day the greatest empires in europe fell cause of internal conflicts due to usurpers weakening region control andarmy forces, leaving the empires undefended against enemies all over (macedonian empire, roman empire examples)

Haha Ive read this with Bane's voice

Well, if u live at that time, and these things happen in like 100 miles away from where u live, you'd probably hear it days or months after it happens.. Anyway, if your just a regular joe during that time, you'd probably hear it through 3rd hand accounts.. And its not probably presented in a manner like this.. and you wont have the internet to check what really happened or how it happened and all that.. Besides, being a peasant, u probably wont know how to read

@@death2denemy lol hence time machine. I'm perfectly happy being born in the information age. But i would love the ability to go back and get a first hand account of events. Wouldn't want to live back then. Antiquity has nothing on the internet, space travel, or wikipedia even.

@@edmundmanuel9304 Yeah. Along with your time machine you want to have a space ship with a giant zoom lens so you can sit back in a comfy chair with a beverage of your choice and some pop corn while watching the Ancients kill each other. That and tiny little spy bots you could teleport into the Royal Chambers and listen (well of course you'd have a universal translator (!!!)) to what they said. .

@@BobSmith-dk8nw i was thinking more wonder woman invisible jet. Space ship is a bit too far from the action. Plus im pretty sure the thing never runs out of gas and can hover XD

@@edmundmanuel9304 Eh .... don't forget I said "giant zoom lens" but ... sure ... hovering invisible jet works. Besides - Wonder Woman is an Amazon ... so ... she'd fit right in. Her and Xena. .

in contrast the Persian had better lower trapezius

The Greeks fought better in the shade

Persians had the most glorious beards

@@emperorclaudias3316 You could say that about the Spartans though. The Spartans were famous among the Greeks for having big beards.

Sprayed on chiseled abs.

"It is remarkable that this account is not Persian propaganda but from the Spartans themselves." lmao you're right. that is hilarious.

Hermes sucks at protecting people that is lesson here

Spartans, like Athenians, killed the envoys in the process of declaring an all out war to the very bitter end. But it seems that, as usual in Greek states back then, various other "voices of reason" prevailed and they changed their mind trying to appease the Persian king. Persians also grabbed the opportunity to show clemency and that their conquest would be a civilised one, not one of annihilation.

Spartans had better relations with Persians cause they hated Athenians.

@@dinos9607 keep coping.

Good point, but it was indeed Alexander that brought it to perfection. Phillip was the one that started it but Alexander took that and with his skills and knowledge led his armies all the way to India. That is why he is known as the greatest military commander to date.

@@ProedrosMeOnoma In a way you are right but I wouldn’t give Alexander 100% of the credit in regards to how good his army was. And the reason I say this it’s because Alexander not only inherited a fully professional army but he also inherited Phillip’s Generals who were amazing at what they do. You had the likes of Seleucus, Antipater, Ptolemy (who later build an empire in Egypt), Eumenes (For me the best of Alexander’s Generals), Antigonus (Brilliant strategist, almost as good as Eumenes. So it’s not like Alexander did it all by himself, he had the best generals you could possibly imagine having at your side and then the professional army. It was a combination of things, I’ll give Alexander 75% of the credit for everything he conquered, the other 25% goes to his brilliant generals and the troops he inherited from his father. But that’s my opinion, I could be wrong.

@@fgrodriguezqac that's absolutely true but it's true for every army commander. Alexander, Xerxes, Napoleon, everyone had and still have their generals and depended on them for success. Maybe the most brilliant military mind, found the most brilliant generals in this case.

15 years of fighting. Zero battle loses.

@@fgrodriguezqac Were do we see the evidence that Philip's or Alexander's generals were amazing? Philip had sent Parmenio in Asia with 10'000 men before his assassiation, whered he accomplished precisely nothing. Antipater, who was left by Alexander as the viceroy in Europe, could not bring down the Spartan revolut until Alexander sent him funds to ensure he had massive numerical superiority and was beaten again during the outbreak of the Lamian war and had to be saved by Craterus brining reinforcements from Asia. Craterus himself was beaten by Eumenes, a secretary. Antigonus the One-Eyed and his son Demtrius failed in their expedition against some Arab tribes in Yemen. Lysimachus was beaten by the Dacians. Seleucus had to concede lands to Chandragupta Maurya. These guys all made their names on the backs of either Philip or Alexander.

English too: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cartagena_de_Indias, storm was an excuse, the defense was too great in each case.

Storm didn’t exist in marathon nor in Thermopylae only blood and corpses

@@ghostofathens6600 they didn't have storm they had the full x men pmsl

Mongol naval invasion?

@@cesaru3619 As anyone who ever played the 90s game Pirates! will tell you, the city of Cartagena is a bitch to attack!! Even in the 16th century, there was a well equipped fort guarding the port and the only way to approach the port was to sail eastwards, against the prevailing westerly winds. That means that you're travelling at a snail's pace, tacking back and forth under the withering fire of the cannons from the forts, never finding a beam reach, always having to either close haul or close reach. Never finding a beam reach means you never get to respond to the fort with a broadside. Cartagena was built to be a deathtrap to aggressors.

Hollywood's creation .now I know.this. in Spain Spanish, Greece Greek, Thailand Thai, Russia Russian, American English, so on so fourth. Captions for those that choose captions. Much better than the voice language of a 1970,s Bruce Lee film

Persians > Greeks. All day. Iran is more historically important than Greece. Anybody that has actually achieved higher education knows this. Nietzche and Hegel were way ahead of the curve when they said this.

@Ezio Auditore For sure they are/were. Greeks were slaves to their gods, Persians invented monotheism and the concept of personal agency in decision making. Better science, arts, literature and technology. Greeks lasted such a short time. Persian civilization was reborn several times and still exists. Alexander didn't beat the Persians, they rose again through Parthia and the Sassanid Empire.

And in the movie that wasn't made: "This! Is! ATHENS!!"

@@thexalon Athenians allied with the Persians against the Spartans and vice versa many times.

But the Persians lost at Issus and Gaugamela. Probably not at as rocky or mountainous as in Greece, nor far from Persian Homeland, yet far from Greece. The forces of Greece probably didn't all speak ONE language, but similar dialects, but i would concede this last point. Which again brings up the chaotic-chance-theory.

@@tommeinhold7190 those are a different time period and under different leadership. The Greeks win in Persia because they had arguably the greatest general leading them at that time in Alexander .

also Greek warriors were more experienced and better tactics probs

@@cant_handle_deeznuts Quite the opposite, and that type of thinking is why videos like this need to be made. The Athenian writers who we take most of our firsthand knowledge of the period from commonly complained about how most Greeks never trained for war. The Spartans only stood out because they did, and their phalanxes wouldn't drift as others were known to do. The Persians on the other hand maintained a standing army, and hired a lot of mercenaries that included Greeks as well as those like Phoenicians who fought "in the Greek style."

@@kongming66 why would Greek mercenaries fight against their own, possibly destroying their culture if they won seems kinda stupid to me

The twin typhoons that thwarted invasions of Japan are an incredible example of this

Or Napoleonic invasion of Russia

@@swagatochatterjee7104 correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that was due to Russia exploiting their massive land (and Napoleon's insufficient knowledge of it) to delay and starve the Napoleon army _until_ winter? If so, that's not really "random", isn't it?

@@swagatochatterjee7104 its not really random as winters in Russia were always very cold. If you're under big threath like France, wouldn't you use your extreme weather for defence and later on as offence?

The "protestant wind" that wrecked the Spanish Armada is a similar stroke of luck.

Because the Persians failed to kick guys into wells while introducing them to the locale.

The Virgin Persians vs. the Chad Spartans.

@@SebAnders well at least the persians didnt poison their own water supplies in greetings lol

@@SebAnders although it is pretty epic to show your dominance by flexing pecs and kicking people down wells as a greeting. "Hello from athens" BLAM.

@Art of Letting go Honestly can't tell if your joking or being serious. Your last sentence is so ridiculous I think your joking if not get medical and mental help.

It's very unlikely. Chaos may have helped the Greeks once or twice, but you don't accidentally beat the most powerful military of the time through mostly luck, and this video really doesn't provide a very convincing argument for this. At the end it literally says it doesn't have the answers then says "oh well, must have been chaos", so even the video doesn't agree with itself on this, lol.

🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺👋🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👋 We were lucky Or it was staged by xerxes himself ...like staged football or boxing games. As Putin today...1 year pretenting that conquering Ukraine 🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👋

Just as another example of failure by luck. The battle of Wu Zhang Plains in Three Kingdoms conflict ended when Zhuge Liang (the commanding official in charge of Shu) fell ill and died despite having the advantage. The lack of trust in his subordinates didn't help Shu Han in sustaining success after his downfall either.

@@adamjenson9369 No, the video quite clearly gives several relevant factors, but adds that there's also a fate/luck/chaos/The Gods factor at work, in things like the storms and timing and such. And it's not the only time this played a role... see the Mongol fleets wrecked while trying to invade Japan, or the freak winter cold in 1941 in Moscow that stalled the German offensive.

10s of 1000s? LOL! Petty barbarians did so. Persians brought in more than a million.

I think that one of the major deciding factors was the rough greek terrain. In order to maintain a large supply chain to feed an army fighting across a sea is much more complicated than on land, implicating hundreds of merchant ships, friendly ports and a lack of proper infrastructure. As a comparison, the roman campaign to pacify the germans was a terrible and bloody one that lasted several decades, and they had a strong land supply line through Gaul (France). Even so the romans only achieved a partial victory, never being able to conquer Germania, but instead opting to pacify it through diplomacy. The persians had to rely on the same tactic as they quickly realised that a protracted war across the seas was far more costly than the greek territories were worth. Opting for diplomatic solutions was the best outcome for them to quell an otherwise minor thorn in the side of a massive elephant which was the Persian empire. In other words, GG Persia, well played.

🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺👋🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👋 We were lucky Or it was staged by xerxes himself ...like staged football or boxing games. As Putin today...1 year pretenting that conquering Ukraine 🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷🇪🇺🇬🇷👋

@@mancamiatipoola just saying. The Persians had control of Greece for over a year and couldn’t finish them off even though they heavily out numbered the Greeks that’s opposed them. Plenty of Greeks backed the Persians.

Well it didn’t help that they lost over 200 ships they were using as supply depots

No, the wars started because The Empire(Which is what Achaemenid means)had banned slavery and the ionian greeks hated this since it meant that people had freedom.

@@DaDARKPass it literally said that they placed dictators to rule those areas. Also im pretty sure the Persians had slaves.

@@philip2009 Nope, the Achaemenid empire banned slavery.

@@DaDARKPass yeah, but they still had prisoners of war as slaves. Also a side note: the pathians and sassanids had many slaves.

Young Adventurer This is a factor that cannot be underestimated. You are fighting for your world and your family and way of life. I would not have any desire to fight an angry Greek with his back to a mountain regardless or his armor for this reason.

Which would be interesting to understand since the Greeks were moving on the Persians... why would the Persians not have chosen the most militarily useful positioning?

@@ghandimauler They chose the most advantageous position for them, the level ground where their cavalry could operate. Then, seeing the greeks disorganized they attacked on the hills losing their advantage

Greeks: "It's over Mardonius, we have the high ground!" Persians: "You underestimate our power!" Greeks: "Don't try it." Persians: * leaps and get their Mardonius chopped off *

Yes !! they copied Obi wan Kenobi !!!!

I am thinking of making a video about this. Some Persian cavalry attacked a retreating Spartan unit at the break of dawn. The Spartan unit turned around to fight, giving time for other Spartan units to come to the rescue. Then Mardonius ordered his left wing forward to help extricate his cavalry that had been partly caught in melee in unfavourable circumstances. Additionally, Mardonius perhaps perceived the Spartans as somewhat disorganised but by then most Greeks were at the foothills and had the high ground. To what extent, great or small, the high ground helped, none of us was there to know, but part of the victory was probably down to the fact that a substantial part of the "Persian" side never committed to battle. Most of the Greek allies of the Persians never went into battle and probably that was the reason why the "Persian" right wing did not get involved at all. Herodotus says that the Macedonian king had come to the Greek camp at night to provide information about the Persian plans and, if that is true, it is unlikely that the Macedonians would have been willing to fight for the Persians and the same probably goes for most other Greek allies of the Persians. Under the circumstances, Mardonius had to win over the Spartans to galvanise the rest of his army to fight for the Persian cause and his dying was a deadly blow to the the Persian chances of a victory.

Just posted a comment echoing this sentiment. It seems like he probably didn’t actually listen to Carlin’s series on these events. If he did, I’m not sure how you could come out of that feeling like Carlin felt any one factor like weapon systems won the conflict.

What I learnt from Carlin was that in the rock paper scissors of majority archers vs majority heavy infantry, Persia beat Assyria but the Greeks won due to a surprise charge downhill at lightly armoured archers boarding boats

Def his 1 day of research is apparently on a 20 minute is apparently more valid take. The ego of this guy. This channels likes TK out too much opinions as fact is why I will never sub.

@@darthbelicheck3559 I think the problem in this topic is because of not enough valid historical sources remain, to pull out a solid truth. Nevertheless, it is still a topic of popular interest; so the channel tries to provide the audience with the best perspectives and opinions, and that's it. Of cause if you are so much into real fact only, you are free to not endorse it.

Definitely an over-reductionist critique of Dans take on the subject. He's open to talking with people who disagree with him, so see if you can do a collaboration on the topic.

Jonny Don't haha!!!

I rather like this notion! ...To think that, way back when, in an instance of dodging blame, it was common to say, "Well, HE certainly got thrown under the rolling oxcart/charging chariot!" ...or some equivalent thereof. 🤓 😁

Or perhaps a phalanx.

You know, now that I reflect a bit more, it's just possible that this sort of comment might have had its equivalent as far back as the Stone Age. One easily pictures some Neolithic tribesman uttering to another: "Well, you sure threw HIM under the mammoth stampede!" 😄

You don't know that! You weren't there!

according to tradition

@@crystos-he There is no 'tradition' when written by historians of the time... and it was a Greek historian (Herodotus) because there could not be a Persian historian knowing of these matters so close to Greece.

@@IonidisIX reee

@@IonidisIX That is the tradition, modern history uses more than just written sources.

Subterfuge is one element he did not talk about.

Indeed, Let's not forget 'free will' was considered liberal nonsense , Zeus & friends used precision -strike lighting bolts on enemy targets.

@@spiritualanarchist8162 or Poseidon using storms at Sea

@@rogueraven1333 was about to say the same thing. It was the wrath of Poseidon that won the war.

@@e1123581321345589144 I guess he must have sided with the English when the French were sending a force to stir stuff up in Ireland and when the Spanish had designs on the Royal Navy.... History is full of 'big storm at sea, lots of key ground military losses' or 'loss of major fleets'

@@ghandimauler Oh poor Persians, just unlucky. Not worse quality warriors, generals or seamanship, just bad luck. So bad in fact that they set out to conquer Greece, but were so unlucky that they did not just fail to do that, twice with 2 different kings, their luck was so bad, that the Greeks ended up conquering Persia. Just imagine the chances, such bad luck. This video is such 21st century Western college liberal non sense. I almost laughed when the narrator said that Greeks weren't so hopelessly outnumbered in the war as you would think, and then he took the battle of Platea as example. Yes because Xerxes had by then withdrawn a great chunk of his army you momo, but EVEN still despite that, the Greeks were outnumbered by modern consensus and they nearly eliminated the Persian army, with what, 10-20.000 left standing only. Obviously the Persians are going to manage to sack cities etc when they are greatly outnumbering the Greeks, but it was tactical retreats by the Greeks, choosing when and where to fight etc, a.k.a good strategy that won the war. The Greeks for example avoided decisive land battle with Persia, until after they had won the battle at Salamis, forcing Xerxes home with much of his army, he still thought he left big enough army in Greece to overcome them, the Greeks thought differently and attacked them and won. And if it was such bad luck in both wars, on both fronts, land and sea, then why on earth did the Persians not invade for the third time. Surely they would not be unlucky for the 3rd time in a row. Maybe because they realized it was not bad luck at all, but that the Greeks were superior? By the way, later when Greece conquered Persia, Alexander found the Greek mercenaries fighting for Persia much harder to overcome than the Persians defending their own territory. For example in the battle of Granicus. And if Persians had listened to the Greek mercenary leader Memnon's advice of scorched earth policy, they would have surely sent Alexendar back with his tails between his legs, because Alexander did not have the resources for long campaign, some say he had only like a month after he landed in Persia to win a battle or sack a city before he would run out of coin and supplies. It was a big gamble, which only the Persians could be relied on to blunder. Was that just bad luck as well then I guess?

Persians used greek heavy merchs infantry and other heavy infantry

@@Paws.of.Justice Yes, it's true. It was very common, specially after the Cunaxa campaing, which proved Greek hoplites as a reliable force and the Peloponnesian War, which left lost of Greek mercenaries out of a job. The Persians understood that the Greek phalanx was stronger in combat than their typical infantry, specially against other Greeks, an tried to use them massively against Alexander.

Heavy armor does not equal being better. Heavy and light armoured troops both had their own pros and cons, with both being usually used with different tactics.

Also, there's a common theme around warfare throughout human history: a large multinational army failing against an army defending what's perceived as their homeland and on their back. As the video, quite what skillfully demonstrates, what was as huge victory for Greece and a huge landmark on their history, was a somewhat minor setback on Persian history at that time.

Didn't roman break the phalanx ?

Ah but as they say amateurs study tactics. Professionals study strategy. And masters study logistics.

@@TribuneAquila And impolite people ignore the facts to find a way to indulge their own ego.

@@TribuneAquila And masters fight on their land so they dont need logistics ;p

the Persians had phalanxes of their own. There were greeks and phoenicians in the Persian army, all of which fought in the phalanx formation.

@@alexandertheok5649 The argument about the phalanx it's very probably true. But I believe that the armor and the materials used by the Greeks were superior, the Persians couldn't make a phalanx that was a wall of bronze like the Greeks. And I don't believe that the Greeks and Phoenicians fighting alongside the Persians had the numbers to make a difference in the outcome.

True, but the Greeks of the time spoke wildly different dialects as well. Later in the Peloponnesian wars, Athenians accidentally attacked their allies once during the siege of Syracuse because of their dialect.

I imagine that on the whole, differences between Greek dialects was a small problem compared with Persian difficulties in holding together and commanding vassals that spoke different languages, had different customs and religions, some of whom were unwilling vassals. Herodotus claims that on the night before the crucial day in the battle of Plataea, the Macedonian king who was nominally a Persian vassal, came to the Greek camp to provide information to the Greeks about the plans of Mardonius. I also feel that control over such a multi-ethnic army was a factor and that the Persians could coerce their unwilling vassals to fight for them only as long as the Persians were winning decisively.

Your so right. If you think about it that's a whole science into it.

This guy compared dealing with dialects to dealing different cultures and languages entirely 😂

Oxtocoatl Latin was the official language of the Army.

All archaeological evidence of Sparta was completely destroyedand exterminated by the French man Michel Fourmont during the Ottoman occupation.

nonetheless thucydides was born a greek, because of the spartans. Otherwise would be an half-breed mistake of a rapped white woman, like in america or greece today. Have fun.

Yeah this was definitely something that got messed up in the creation of the graphics. The script more accurately talks about levies with infrequent training as would be expected from militias.

The state does not publicly train for war.--Xenophon, Memorabilia 3.12.5 Although we're happy to go to war with just about everyone, we do not train ourselves for it.--Isokrates 8.44 No such group training or competition now exists in any city-state at all, except maybe in a very small way.--Plato Laws 831b

@@ParallelPain Which is likely the difference between agrarian familial groups and neighbors training together as a matter of custom and necessity rather than state organized annual training involving hundreds or thousands of people. Additionally summer warfare between Greek states was so common and losses generally so minimal that it virtually guaranteed that much of a Greek fighting formation would be comprised of veterans anyway; regular seasonal warfare is training of it's own. Xenophon as you clearly understand is likely making this statement with the Persians in mind for comparison. (who do maintain a version of a standing army within their greater decentralized levy system)

@@Dadecorban Xenophon was making the comparison to the Spartans, who did publicly train for war, not Persians. This kind of "summer neighborhood camp" is completely conjecture with no support in the written sources. In fact, the sources tell us that in general, Greeks prefer not to train at all and in fact resisted training. Herodotus tells of when an admiral tried to train the Ionians who revolted against Persia, Book 6.11-12: ---- For seven days they obeyed him and did his bidding; but on the next day, untried as they were in such labor and worn out by hard work and by the sun, the Ionians began to say each to other: “Against what god have we sinned that we have to fulfill this task? We have lost our minds and launched out into folly, committing ourselves into the hands of this Phocaean braggart, who brings but three ships; and having got us he afflicts us with afflictions incurable. Many of us have fallen sick already, and many are likely to suffer the same thing; instead of these ills, it would be better for us to suffer anything, and endure this coming slavery, whatever it will be, rather than be oppressed by that which is now upon us. Come, let us obey him no longer!” So they spoke, and from then on no man would obey. As if they were an army, they raised tents on the island where they stayed in the shade, and they were unwilling to embark upon their ships or to continue their exercises. --- After only a week of training, the Ionians say they'd rather lose to the Persians than train any longer. Thucydides has Pericles praise the Athenians and mock Spartan training in his funeral oration by saying the untrained Athenians are just as brave as the harshly trained Spartans, Book 2.39: ---- If we turn to our military policy, there also we differ from antagonists. We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens; while in education, where our rivals from their very cradles by a painful discipline seek after manliness, at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger. ---- Note Thucydides also described the Athenians botching a seemingly simple right wheel at Amphipolis (Book 5.10) compared to the Spartans at Mantinea whom is described as forming up for battle incredibly quickly and orderly (Book 5.66), and who advanced to the sound from flute-players to prevent breaking order that other armies do when engaging (Book 5.70). Xenophon also have Socrates complain to Pericles that the Athenians in general not only did not train, they mocked the few who did, Memorabilia, Book 3.5: ---- When will they adopt the Lacedaemonian system of training, seeing that they not only neglect to make themselves fit, but mock at those who take the trouble to do so? ---- Xenophon also have Socrates, like Herodotus about the Ionians, talk about how the Athenian army is insubordinate to the officers (contrasting them to the fleet) also Memorabilia, Book 3.5: ---- Ah yes, and strange indeed it is that such men submit themselves to their masters, and yet the infantry and cavalry, who are supposed to be the pick of the citizens for good character, are the most insubordinate. ---- Plato, likewise, talk about how Athenians mock people who did train. First Laws 830b to 830d, talking about how trainers not willing to make some very sensible training regimens ---- and if we chanced to be very short of training-mates, do you suppose that we should be deterred by fear of the laughter of fools from hanging up a lifeless dummy and practicing on it? Indeed, if ever we were in a desert, and without either live or lifeless training-mates, would we not have recourse to shadow-fighting of the most literal kind, against ourselves? Or what else should one call the practice of pugilistic posturing? And so is their lawgiver, through fear lest these training-bouts may appear ridiculous to some, to refrain from laying down laws whereby he will ordain field-operations ---- Plato then goes on to describe his ideal training regimens, then state in no uncertain terms such regimen does not currently exist in any state, except to a very small extent (Laws 831b). Plato, having first put the advantages of training to fight in arms and armour into the mouth of Nicias, also put into the mouth of Laches, that Athenians thought there's no need, *as the Spartans do not* (Laches 182e-183a): ---- I speak of it in this way from the following point of view: I conceive that if there were anything in it, it would not have been overlooked by the Lacedaemonians, whose only concern in life is to seek out and practise whatever study or pursuit will give them an advantage over others in war. ---- Laches also saying none of these trainers have distinguished themselves in war, and have not become famous for their training (Laches 183c): ---- Indeed, we can estimate it offhand: for, as though it were of set purpose, not one of these experts in arms has ever yet distinguished himself in war. And yet in all the other arts, the men who have made a name are to be found among those who have specially pursued one or other of them; while these persons, apparently, stand out from the rest in this particularly hapless fate of their profession. ---- And, after telling the story of Stesilaus who was so mocked, that the Athenians mock those who did (Laches 184a-184c): ---- For indeed I hold that if a man who was a coward believed that he possessed it, his only gain would be in rashness, which would make his true nature the more conspicuous; while if he were brave, people would be on the look-out for even the slightest mistake on his part, and he would incur much grievous slander; for the pretension to such skill arouses jealousy, so that unless a man be prodigiously superior to the rest in valor he cannot by any means escape being made a laughing-stock through professing to be so skilled. ---- While it might seem strange to us, evidence point to that the Greeks believe that fighting as heavy infantry to be a matter of courage, instead of skill. Going back to what Pericles (Thucydides) said, this seem to be shared even by the people who was pushing for training. Xenophon in Cyropaedia has his hero Cyrus the Great rearm his peltasts and bowmen as heavy infantry (armour, shield, and scimitar or sabre in particular). The Persian commoners rejoiced at this. In Cyropaedia Book 2.3, Xenophon has of a certain Pheraulas describe how fighting in close quarters are actually instinctual, like from animals, even with swords. Pheraulas continues: ---- For this was not only instinctive, like walking and running, but I thought it was fun in addition to its being natural. Be that as it may,” he went on, “since this method of fighting awaits us, which demands courage more than skill, why should we not gladly compete with the peers here?” ---- This is also in line with Plutarch's likely apocryphal story in Moralia 233 that says the Spartans "appointed no trainers to instruct in wrestling so that the rivalry might be not in skill, but in courage". And it is in line with what Aristotle wrote in Politics 1338b of both Athenians and Spartans, by which time the Athenians had state-paid training as well: ---- Now at the present time some of the states reputed to pay the greatest attention to children produce in them an athletic habit to the detriment of their bodily form and growth, while the Spartans although they have avoided this error yet make their boys animal in nature by their laborious exercises, in the belief that this is most contributory to manly courage. ---- So the evidence here is that there were in fact private, ad-hoc training. But this training is not some type of neighbourhood farmer association, but of the rich and leisurely who had time and money to hire trainers. And indeed, even among the rich and leisurely, training seem to be rare. Memoralia 3.12, quoted before, is Xenophon writing of Socrates telling one of his students/companions that though the state do not train, he was out of shape and should train. Likewise Plato in Republic, Book 4.422 compares the wealthy to fat rich men, or men who have more skill and practice in boxing than war (note this also implies Plato thinks the usual training of the day don't help in war, and the rich didn't train much in war either). Even among learned experts, the common believe was that phalanx fighting rested not in skill, but in courage. Experts believed training made people more courageous, while common people prided themselves on their natural courage and mocked the skills of those among them who trained. Other reason for this lack of training was stated by Xenophon in Poroi. In chapter 1, Xenophon says that the Athenian leaders said that “owing to the poverty of the masses, we are forced to be somewhat unjust in our treatment of the cities.” In chapter 2, Xenophon suggest that they should relieve non-citizens of the obligation to serve in the infantry, as "it is no small thing to leave their trades and their private affairs", a burden that in all likelihood is shared by the citizens. In chapter 4, after outlining changes to slave labour and silver mining "in order that every Athenian may receive sufficient maintenance at the public expense" Xenophon states that, those who trained for torch races, who did garrison duty, who served as peltasts, and who patrolled the land did so voluntarily, and so did not take things seriously. The implication here is also only those rich enough to volunteer their time did these things, contrasting with Aristotle’s times when the state paid for the training.

@@ParallelPain None of the quotes you mentioned directly contradicts the theme of militia training; For the Ionians and the battle of Lade, the mention is for the crews and indeed the majority of rowers were untrained .Which navy ever had trained rowers? except maybe Athens? For Xenophon quotes ; He was a reknown friend of Sparta and everything you quoted is a comparison of his between Athens and Sparta. So we must see his views under that prism. For the nature of the brutal hoiplite warfare the qiotes were right ,it was a matter of courage rather than skill. For you could not block or parry the blows just accept that you would get hit unless your side would crush the opposoing side quickly. More spesifically : 1 & 2 refer to the rowers of battle of Lade. Irrelevant to the subject at hand , IMHO which is the notion that citizen phlanxes at the time were experienced. 3 talks about generally way of life and not spesifically battle and war. 4 For any luck of performance of Athenian infantry we have the opposite performance at marathon , at the battles before the persian invasion against the Thebans ,the supreme performance at the second battle at thermopylae agaisnt the gauls and so on. 5& 6 It is implied that the general population did not trained -as we say- but few did. Thats is a generalization. Today USA does not have training for all male population. So according to your logic ,US Marines are untrained? 7&8 Insubordination to high command as we define it today was a key thing of greek culture regardless of training or not. It is a culture thing and what define western way of war versus the autocratic military systems of the East. The general did not have a tabula rasa for the lifes of his men. But he was obliged to explain to them his actions. Failing to fullfill their expectations had dire consequences. Macedon's army was almost a separate political body that gave authority to the king. Spartan Amomfaretus denied Pausanias before battle of Platea. The spartan Omoioi will force Kleomvrotos to attack the Thebans at Leuctra. Saying that greeks of the time did not blindly followed orders = untrained is a gross misconception and shows lack of knowledge of greek way of governing themselves. Rest of your quotes are generic. It compare system of governance between sparta and Athens. While Sparta had entire male population under arms for decades while Athens did not . Athens is like USA of today. Had a proffesional core of soldiers which would be supplamanted in time of dire crisis with militia. Athens was at war from early 500 bs untill /and gallic invasion. Every 10 years was a war. taking into consideration the manpower of the city and the noumerous corps it put onto the field basically at times entire athenian population were at arms. Athenians had a standing army of the Logades , political remnant of archaic/mycenean times. these were the rich the nobility. Except these they at least had a permanent auxilia cavalry horse archer formation comprised by scythinas and rich athenians. They had auxilia police made by thracians and they also had permanent crews that maintained the triremes. After a point they had an obligatory two year service. Aristoi of Thebes also were a permanent body ,which pelopidas later will make into as Sacrd band. But they existed before hand they did not figh as one unit rather than dispersed. Macedon had the Companions which were permanet aswell. Thessaly aswell had permanet corps. except if we think that raw recruit cavalrymen can use diamond formation with brutal effectiveness. Or recruit cavalry charging head on and winning a spartan phalanx (during athenian coup) Arcadians had "Eparitoi" numered at 5k. Achaian federation had standing army aswell. The battles of ancient greeks tell us if they had training or not; At Crimisos river Timoleon could only rely on his " volunteered elite" corinthian infantry. The term directly to me equals the permanent nobility of corinth ,probably some type of Epilektoi. They faced at extreme numerical disadvantage the whole carthaginian army and its famous fully proffesional sacred band. Fighting below waist inside the river under heavy storm and rain in phalanx formation against the carthaginian phalanx. Which was so afraid of their "pushing" that according to ancient sources they had chained themselves one to another. The result was the complete anihillation of the carthaginian sacred band. No raw recruits could do that excpet a veteran elite corps. Also note that the greeks failed to break the sacred band with spears and resorted to swordfighting.... In the gallic invasion of 279bc the athenians send their Epilektoi at thermopylae and they faced the elite gaulish warriors that were in arms in lower balcans for decades. The gauls failed again and again to break the phlanx and bypassed the narrow point instead of winning against the massed greek infantry. I can bring examples of military feats of recorded ancient greek formations that are impossible to be done except they were comprised by elite troops. The mercenaries of darius at Issus ?That penetrated the best pike phalanx ever? The aitolian cavalry that bested the macedon companions at first roman macedonian war? The spartan phalanx at coroneia that opened their ranks to avoid the onslaught of the theban juggernaught? The constanty recorded testimonies of greek formations chaging facing sides in battle? Cunaxa? Thates river? coroneia? How a raw recruit corps at marathon was able to give ground while its flanks destroy the elite permanent persian infantry and then stop giving chase , but reunite in one body and fell into its ranks ? There is scarcelly any other reecord in history concerning infantry formation achieving that. The armour of the elites ,mainly the muscular broze cuirass ,the closed helmets ,the greaves ,the bronze renneforced shield the sword and the heavy spear are impossible to be worn , carried over for hours , and then used under greek sun and summer temps for any human indivindual unless that indivindual had bigger muscles and body structure. Any college student that tried to wore the full panoply for more than 15 mins was exhausted. The greeks were doing that for hours under 40-45 degrees celsius inside the dust and in intense psychological stress. yet all these men were untrained militias. Side note and I close , many of the misconceptions about modern interprentations of phalanx warfare are originated from the inability of the renactors/students etc to wear the full panoply. "Ok we cannot breath here inside the panoply for long ,so the greeks did not fough for hours but rather charged and hit with spears at full spear range. None ancient author mentions it , but hey it is impossible for me to stay consius so this must have been happened" "These spear tips are coming directly at me and i cannot doidge or block. this is wrong ,obvioulsy something else happened." " Othismos? Pushing against the enemy formation? Are you crazy ? the spear point are at my face!! It did not happened" "These panoply is very heavy. Impossible for me to wear it ,so lets make a modern version of it with 1/5 of its thickness and then complain that greek armor is not protective" And so on....

i think Greece is the only country in the world who has suffered more slavery in their history than any other nation from the Roman annexation of Greece in 146 BC till 1453 and then the Ottoman conquest of Greece which that lasted for almost 400 years till 1828 so it is almost two thousand years of slavery that Greeks suffered ..........

@@zaroonyakhyakhan4514 Americans slaving blacks with racism up to this date

@@specfei9895 what does this have to do with what he said? He’s talking about slavery that lasted thousands of years. Comparing that to the less than 200 years in America is idiocy.

@† Vato † first of all christianity is not the religion of greeks and once greek fell to rome after that and to this date greece is pretty much irrelevent and you said who else did the same in history but i won't say who i will say the only one that did that is Iran and Iranians because Iran is the only country to became a super power many times, many ups and downs but Iran always came on top so from the Median Empire to The fall of Achaemenid Empire to Alexander the Great then they became a super power again as the Parthians as The Sassinids and as the Safvids and now the Islamic republic of Iran not a supeer power but hey right now whole world is aginst Iran but Iran is not giving up. Iran the Epitome of Pride. so tell me which other country like Iran. i like greece a lot great country though.

@† Vato † no wonder greece suffered two thousand years slavery because they stop passage to europe at the time when there was no europe and they suffered it because they could hold a shield.

*laughs in Prosperine*

😅😅😅

@CXVII 117 R the emperor protects, does the inquisition need assistance from the legion astartes to cleanse this heresy

Clearly the Greeks won cause they was da meanest an da greenest

@CXVII 117 R Of course this is heresy. Everyone knows that Diversity is our strength, and that Mandarins of PC are guardians of Truth.

Thanks

That also works on pc. Idk about console

@@suomusintti i think the dev fixed it on the latest patch on console.

Oh man, thanks for doing this! 👍

THIS IS SPARTA!

didnt romans write their history?i mean the persians didnt it

Your right except for the part about the empire history they are a lot of source and material found in Iran but unfortunelty lot were lost over time by different invasion so it's a bit less precise than greeks history but still really detailled actually

@@jacktheripper5112 that’s his point, so what’s yours?

As an Iranian I appreciate (& am shocked a bit) to see that open minded people who are not blinded by western propaganda still exist in the west ! Although the lies about Greco-Persian wars are virtually nothing in comparison to how deep some other western propagandas go in everything ! And honestly 90 if not 99 percent of the Iranians don't even know where is Greece ! We call it *Yunan* which is derived from *Ionia* !!! Even in the ancient times Iranians referred to all the Greeks as Ionians who were the Greeks of Anatolia & lydia ! ( simply because Iranians were always a United nation & people & from their/our point of view everyone else was like that too ! Ancient Iranians didn't really consider themselves to differentiate between Spartans, Athenians, ionians & so on ! *so when the ionians unprovokedly revolted & were supported by other Greeks in Athens, Iranians took it as a sign that all of the Greeks, city states or not revolted & killed innocents at Sardis and burned temples* !!! So it's only understandable that they wanted to punish this behavior & when they punished the ionians, they continued to punish the Athenians as well ! ( *From their perspective they were revenging their loved ones who were killed in the revolt & punishing everyone responsible* ) You might not believe me but we don't even know that Sparta was a city in Greece ! *if not for the popular God of wars game we would've never heard of the word Spartan even* LMAO !!! I understand that for Greece it's such a pivotal moment of history when they could have a minor victory against the superpower of the world but for us , the number of our superpowers & their struggles & main enemies are sooo much that we honestly don't know or hear from these events at all !!! Our ancient history/pre-Islamic history is like : *Proto-Elamite & Elamite civilization 5000 years ago* ! *The Median-Iranians forming an alliance between their tribes & forming the Median empire against the Assyrian empire 3000 years ago & eventually defeating the Assyrian empire with the help of the Babylonian empire* ! *Cyrus the great being born in the province of Pars/Persia 2600 years ago & conquering the known world & all of its empires including the Median empire, the Lydian empire, the Babylonian empire, the indus valley, the caucuses & north west of India & then dying of old age in bed at the age of 71 years old* ! *Darius the great conquering even more lands like Egypt, more parts of the north west of India, the Scythian lands & the Balkans , south Russia & Ukraine* ! & then we memorize some names of the Achaemenid king of kings ( not what they did or anything else about them ) & then *Iskandar-e-Maqdoni* (Alexander the Macedonian) trying to conquer the Achaemenid empire & succeeding at overthrowing it 2300 years ago but then dying very young before he could rule anything ! ( I don't know where do people get this impression from that Alexander is called *Alexander the accursed* in Iran ??? Literally everyone either don't know him or if they do, call him *Alexander the Macedonian* ) Although I should mention that he's considered to be more like a barbarian general specially because of burning persepolis & its great libraries ! But no one calls him *accursed* ! I don't know where people got that from ?! & that's all that we hear about the Achaemenid empire !!! *& since 99% of the Iranians think that Macedonia is different from Yunan/Greece , no one really knows that at some point Greece was our enemy* !!?? The word Yunan literally brings up 4 names in our minds: *Parmides, Arastoo/Aristotle, Aflatoon/Plato & Phisaghores/Pythagoras* !!!! That's it ! That's literally all that we know of Greece !!! (Also the news about Greece getting worse & worse in economy by the day) Then there are way much more content & accounts (things to be studied) about the Ashkanian/Parthian empire & the Sassanian empire as the other superpowers of the world that were arch rivals with Rome ! ( *The Parthian dynasty & the Sassanian dynasty together ruled Iran for about 1000 years, from 2250 years ago to 1300 years ago, as the world's superpower & were almost all the time equally matched by the other superpower of the world, Rome ! Untill the Islamic conquests in the 7th century A.D* ) so there's way much more content in those eras that we study !

@@mitalicsProductions why the butthurt ?? "I'm proud that 99% of my people don't know where Greece is" ??? *Why would that be of any importance to me whatsoever* ??? Honestly I couldn't care a rat's @$$ about that ! I just stated what's the truth ! *& honestly it was a very neutral statement that didn't carry any insulting meaning nor any praising meaning in it , just completely neutral* !!! You think if I wanted to insult you or downgrade you, I'd say it like that ??? Lol. *There's either something wrong with your eyes or with your cognitive capabilities if you thought that was an insult* !!! Or perhaps you just don't understand English well. Regardless, that was just a very tiny & irrelevant part of my comment !!! My whole point was that: *I'm happy & a bit shocked that open minded people still exist in the west even after all the B.S they're feeding you with propagandas* & I also explained our point of view on the matter & also pointed out why we have innumerable other significant parts & informations to care about & focus on ! & no !!! my ancestors recorded they history pretty Well enough ! But we've fought off almost every single major character in history ! From the Assyrians 5000 years ago to Alexander the Macedonian, Rome for 1000 years, the Muslim Rashidun caliphate & Saladin, Genghiz Khan, Tamerlan, the ottomans for half a millennium, the British, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Russian empires & the USSR, WW1, WW2 & even now we're giving a middle finger to the U.K & the U.S for wanting our resources for free & sanctioning us to death !!! *ofc that many of our records were burned & destroyed !!! But it's irrelevant cuz what's important is our land & our identity & civilization & culture which is what we'll continue to fight on for against every single superpower that comes & goes* !!!

Correct

This is wrong my friend. The Greeks of Anatolia werent all Ionians. Its just took the name the hole Asia Minor because of the Ionians(IONIA). Actually the city which started the revolt(MILITOS),was an Ionian colony. The 3 main Greek tribes who collonized Asia Minor since 8th century B.C. were the Aeolians(NORTH PART), the Ionians(CENTRAL PART) and the Dorians(SOUTH PART). Actually Herodotus was from Alicarnassus which was a Dorian collony. Sparta didnt support the revolt because thats was her policy at the time. Never to make long campaigns and never to risk her army out of Peloponese.

The Ionian that went to Sparta to talk with Cleomenes wanted to hire him to go all the way to Pasargadae, or something like that, which was ridiculous. "You mean that you want me to march THREE MONTHS to find the enemy? Get out!", or something like that.

Yes as pointed out by others this statement is false. While the Ionians had maybe a larger presence. The southern based poleis in "Ionia" were Dorians. Knidos, Kos, Halllikarnasos, etc...The Rhodians were also Dorian Greeks.

@@deathdoor Yes exactly my friend. Aristagoras was his name. Tyrrant of Miletus at the time. Ionian colony. Even the little daughter of Cleomenes didnt trust him. Argo was her name, who was five or six as far as i remember.

Tbh I still think that is unfair, you have to consider the popularity of sports with the Greeks, like wrestling and pankration, it creates a naturally more athletic pool of recruits. There is also the Pyrrhike, which is taught in schools and practices for festivals, I'd say the Greeks were more akin to national guard than untrained militia, maybe not quite as much training but you get the gist

I think the most obvious reason for the Persian failure was the difficulty of projecting power at such long ranges. Whereas the Greeks could quickly replenish man and equipment losses, the Persians had at least a 1-month lag time just to get troops and equipment to the front lines. At this point, you have to project what you think you will need, and any error can be very costly. If you call for more men, expecting losses, and you don't lose as many troops, you may not be able to feed the excess. If you have a significant setback, the enemy now has a month to run wild. You can't fight a war like that. The same scenario later occurred in the American war for independence, and with both Napoleon and Germany's invasion of Russia. Once your response time starts being measured in weeks and months, it becomes an impossible war to win unless you have truly overwhelming strength. The Persian invasion force was strong, but not overwhelming. They could not simply bury them in bodies.

@Stateira Ardeshiri The Greeks invented the middle finger.

Pathetic american propagandists.

As mentioned by Daniel Abbott’s reply athletic activities and training was occurring on a daily basis along with other activities so yes "Untrained levies" would not be the correct term. I would also want to add the different mentality between the Greek and Persian world. To explore this better you can try deep diving on the battle of Cunaxa (401 BC) and the adventures of the Greek mercenaries employed by Cyrus the Younger in order to dethrone his brother Artaxerxes II (Described in detail in the book Anabasis) . During the battle Cyrus died and his troops scattered leaving only the Greek mercenaries on the field which after pushing back the enemies left flank the turned back and scattered the victorious Artaxerxes’s army to learn soon after that Cyrus was dead making their victory invalid and finding themselves stranded in deep hostile territory. After trying to negotiating with the Persians they are deceived and they lose their general and senior officers which were captured and executed by the Persians. What happened next? They just elected replacement leaders and after a lot of marching and endless hostilities they manage to reach the Black sea shores and safety. So in conclusion: Cyrus dies > his army collapses (except the Greek mercenaries) Greek mercenaries leaders die > replaced with minor effect on the army The events above are from a period after the Greco-Persian wars but you can also find this behavioral pattern during the Persian wars as well Leonidas dies > His soldiers fight brutally to claim his dead body (it is said that the king’s dead body changed hands 4 times between the Greeks and Persians). Mardonius dies > Persian army collapses. We can also witness this going on at Alexander the Great’s campaign and just by observing the way the battle plan was drawn (when facing Darius) with Alexander attacking the king’s position directly or indirectly in order to break the Persian army and even without their king (or army leader) dead but fleeing the Persian army routed (at Granicus they fled leaving the Greek mercenaries fighting for them behind…again). PS: You could also add army cohesion to that scale as the Persian army relied on allied troops of unclear loyalty and discipline (some of the Greek city states that allied with the Persians seriously underperformed against their Greek compatriots staying idle during the battle or retreating)

Of damn you are right. I messed up the video graphic.

Darius was in the battle of Mortadellas, hence the confusion.

@@InvictaHistory Probably/Obviously you knew that. I know how it is...Last year i was working on Belisarius and talking about him... and when I was talking about Vittigis, i confused him with Uliaris. When i realized the mistake i thought the same...what a mess. I was reading so much about them...why did i say that?! :P

@@Citadin hahahahahahah

he is a joke

persians did write but all of them burned by greeks and arabs and mongols after that. books and writing were very important to persians so they didn't burn books and destroyed tablets that had knowledge or were useful unlike some other nations.

@Stateira Ardeshiri Of course the Persians contributed a lot to history and to the inventions that we still use to this day, but in this case we're talking about the documents and writing that we have from the persians of this time. We barely have any writings passed down from the Persians due to nations and people over the centuries destroying them or even losing them.

“YoU hAvE nO kNoWlEdGe oF tHe PeRsIAnS”... yeh that’s the point

@Stateira Ardeshiri I'm saying that we have more from the greeks on the Greco- Persian wars than the persians

@Stateira Ardeshiri Nowhere did I imply that the lack of knowledge was due to the inferiority of the Persians. I certainly did not want to engage in a cultural pissing match. It was more aimed at the use of that particular phrase. Sorry you expended so much effort missing the point.

Only a few cities did that though... as you can see on the map, most of Greece was either neutral or actually bent the knee to the Persians. So they're nowhere near "unbreakable" or "united", a few resisted powerfully and ended up winning.

Actually almost all of the Greek cities fought.. remember this was 490 BC . Todays map of Greece does not apply to this scenario. Most Greek cities were in the Peloponnesus and the lower part of Greece like Attica ( where Athens was located). Barring the Ionian cities which were not in mainland Greece most Greek cities were fighting against the Persians. The win sent shockwaves through the Persian world and shattered the myth of their invisibility.

Impressive, looking at how greece is being invaded by primitive criminals, lost most of its turism (i wont be returning to greek islands to see african marauders) without putting up a fight.

@@chrism7199 Actually many Greek states like Epirus and Akarnania, as welll as Corcyra and the states in the modern Heptanese didn't even intervene, the Thebans allied with the Medes and the Macedonians and the Greeks of Asia Minor also. Only really the Athenians, the Plataeans and the Eretreans and the Peloponnesians fought the Persian onslaught meaningfully from 490 to 479 B.C

@@aimilize3518 Hi, you may have mis-read my comment. I didn’t say every Greek state, I said the majority of them. The reality is most of the Greek cities you mentioned were minor cities on the fringes of the Greek world. Here is a list of the Greek city states that fought: Sparta Megara Philus Epidaurus Platea Chalchis Potidea Athens Sicyon Troezen Arcadians Orchomenos Ageina Mycenae Tyrens Chephalonia Corinth Tegea Anactorion Leukas Eretira Styra Ambracia Hermioni Leprium Cythnus Siphnus Corinth Troezen Ceos Serifos Aigina Naxos Melos Croton … the list above is just from two battles, not even all the war.

its because this is a bias interpretation, according to this guy, the Persians were peaceful kind enlightened empire, and forced into a war with ignorant Greeks that should have known their place. note the language, persians dont commit genocide, or destroy or rob/pillage. Instead, they clean up, and incorporate. as in any history lesson, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Dan also has always went out of his way to state that he’s not an “expert” too. His commentary in King of Kings is great cause it sounds more like he’s just having a conversation with you and the whole Arms and Armor comparison was something for him to geek out about. If anything, he makes it sound like possible supply problems for the Persians are what led to Greek victory.

Yes, the author offers to tell us why and instead simply gives a narration of events. We are left to conclude Persia failed because it lost battles. The author gives no explanation of why.

@@bluu7964 I mean, better not get cancelled right? LOL

@@bluu7964 I'm about 10 mins in and the Persian's are pillaging, sieging, attacking... yeah no you're just a Philhellene

Except that the Greeks didn't have phalangites. The hoplites fought with much shorter spears than in RTW 1 where they're almost the same.

Persia was the superior veteran player, who humiliated everyone until everyone thought that their only way of surviving at all was to trust each other and work together. Didnt you watch the video? Its there just to prove you wrong.

What

Persia didnt watch online battles enough

@@miguelmontenegro3520 Yeah, doing it live sucks.

"The amateurs discuss tactics, the professionals discuss logistics"

there isnt a hellenistic culture. There is the Hellenistic era which extents from the death of alexander to about the second century Α.D

Yes i agree the Hellinistic period began after the death of Alexander the Great

@sciphynuts care to elaborate?

sciphynuts yeah right where did you read these bs?

@@giorgosdim9845 You couldn't be more wrong. First, there was Mycaenean Hellas, which existed during the Bronze Age. Then, there was Classical Hellas (aka Classical Greece), which extended up to Philip of Macedon's conquest of most of Hellas. Then there was the Hellenic cultural group, encapsulating post-Alexander Hellas as well as the Successor States (Ptolmeic Egypt, Baktria, Pontus, Odryssia, the Seleucids and more). Hellenistic culture was a broad encapsulation of the cultures conquered by Philip and Alexander of Macedon once they were syncretized with the Hellenic culture. P.S. For those of you who are interested, even modern Greeks call Greece "Hellas" and themselves "Hellenic". The word Greek comes from Graecia, which was a Hellenic city-state that colonised southern Italy. Upon encountering the Romans, they introduced themselves as Graeci (people of Graecia), by which Romans then called all Hellenic peoples, and was gradually etymologically evolved into "Greek".

A perfect example of what 'bad translation' is ... Greeks don't call them Olympic Games but Olympic Contests ('Agones' , which word has the same root as 'Agonia' - Strugle ). You wouldn't believe how many of those Bad translations are out there in the 'History' books ... one can realize only if he/she learns Ancient Greek Language which is the mother of all tongues.

i agree that Greek military preparedness was more a basic social construct than that of a government program, but what few commentators seem to ignore is the contrast of the Persian success along the Asiatic coastline vrs their failures (missed it by that || much!) vrs Greece itself. 1) The myriad number of little islands and coves of the Aegean sea made it a perfect environment for ambush as opposed to the coastline of Asia. 2) Logistics for the Persians along the Asian coastline was fairly simple and similar to other campaigns they fought a thousand time before, but Greece was different. The stony ground of Greece did not yeild enough crops to sustain a large Persian force, and so it would have to be supplied across the Aegean sea, which Greek fleets could and did intercept at points of Greek choosing to maximize their strengths and reduce their vulnerabilities. 3) Once the battle of Salamis destroyed the Persian ability to supplement their supply and logistical requirements with naval supply, the Persians had to reduce their number of troops that garrisoned Greece, which in turn opened the situation up for a Greek win at Plateau. So, no, the Greeks did not win due to simple martial superiority but because they exploited the terrain and geographical position they enjoyed in Greece to maximize their force multipliers while the Persians were fighting a predominately naval war, for which they much depended on Rhodes, Cyprus and Tyre to provide and had much less experience. The Persians lengthy supply lines over sea that was not easily secured made the final long term goals untenable over sea.

"Vassal" kingdom

oversimplified but yes, that's what's behind the Ionian Revolt. Should also mention that Athens invaded and burnt temples in Sardis, capital of the satrapy, which later became the reason why so many temples got destroyed in mainland Greece. Talking of Athens as the poor guys that got invaded and did nothing to deserve it, it's completly wrong. And HER points it out all throughout his works, he keeps reminding Athenesians that their narration is not true, it's imbued in propaganda.

Yeah hills, sand, marshes and dense forests are known nemesis of horse cavalry

And close the door behind you. Thanks.

If you're looking for a solid female character, You can find Admiral Artemis there in the battle of Salamis. She was the second best admiral of the Persian Fleet. Second only to that of Sidon.

Ah yes, the battle where the Persians tried to use quantity at their advantage but were beaten by the quality oriented Greek chefs

@@vahidhashemi9684 You mean Artemisia. But do we have any actual and trustworthy sources supporting this claim? The sources I've read up to this date weren't as favorable about her actual exploits. So I was kinda surprised but not surprised to see someone who could be none other than her on a second 300 movie poster (though haven't seen the movie yet) and expected the makers just put some recognizable figure into it and made her actually cooler than she was.

@@Epifairos There is some evidence that Artemisia was a real person, though it's likely that she was glorified to the same extent as other similar people from around the same time (Xerxes, Themistocles and Brasidas, to name a few). Propaganda was very important for morale, after all, if your commander is legendarily good then you're going to fight harder because you genuinely BELIEVE that they're that good. Same for fighting against them, if the enemy commander is a strategic legend, the heart could go out of your fight. As for Artemisia's historicity, it's likely that her reputation was gained partly from merit, partly from ferocity, partly from ruthlessness (it is currently thought that after winning a battle she would kill all but one man from each city-state, mutilate him by removing his ears and one hand, and then send him home to report on what she had done to spread fear, panic and her legend), partly from her competent subcommanders, partly from propaganda (see above) and partly from the fact that she was a woman commander in a time when war was firmly a purely man's domain. That said, reputations like that must be gained for a reason.

Don’t be proud of this. Fast forwarding means missing info. Whether you’re trying to or not, you’re gonna miss something. Bad habit to have, anywhere.

Most underrated comment here.

Isnt numbers also logistics

@@cc0767 Nope, you can have an army of a hundred thousand but if you don't have the food and supplies to keep them on the field then you have poor logistics.

food is also a number, so is oil, distance etc. Logistics can be said to be also numbers, just a different number.

Numbers as in number of enemy troops...

In addition to that, Dan Carlin also did mention the Persians being overstretched. His explanation for the Persian loss was not attributed to one thing.

It's funny, because during ancient times, Herodotus was accused for pro-persian bias

He also spoke several times about how the numbers on these things don’t always add up. You can’t just make armor and spears and have hoplites just like you can’t just make armor and short swords and have Roman legionaries. Boiling it down to weapons systems alone is impossible.

Dan main goal seems to always entertain, more than be accurate. He is an "amateur" historian, or even less than that, and he makes this clear frequently. He just wants to tell a good story and his listeners knows this.

sitiesito Agree. Dan Carlin rocks. Sorry leaves Invicta in the dust.

Very relatable

No it was Xerxus

It was most definitely Xerxes.

Hahaha 😂

I don't think it is fair to say that is his main argument. Just that he quotes a lot of primary sources like Herodotus who say this about battles like Marathon despite it not necessarily being true.

It's been a while since I listened, but usually Carlin emphasizes that sources will tend to be biased towards their parent civilization.

@@InvictaHistory Thanks for your reply. I like Dan Carlin but haven't heard the podcast in question, loved this video and reminded me I have some hardcore history I have to catch up on. Its always good to hear the different sides of the stories / different perspectives and hope you make more stuff about Greece 'cause videos like this are enthralling to me.

I listened to King of Kings recently and can't remember what, if anything, Dan Carlins specific comments are on the greeks in battle or if he just lets quotes from herodotus speak, but Id argue the whole point of the King of Kings series is to try and look at these classic battles from a Persian perspective, starting all the way back with founding of Persia and discissing their culture and what made them distinct. Its a while before greece even enters the picture, I dont think its in the first part at all, and only partially in the second. His specific comments on the battles may be more innaccurate than I remember, but I want to say he made relatively simmilar comments to this video, including how this was only a minor issue to Persia, and none of their "losses" were as major of setbacks as greek writers like to present. Maybe he could have had more contextual commentary around Herodotus's quotes but even that I want to say he calls greek propaganda, and calls his numbers into question. This is all alongside his commentary on how Athens had only recently become a democracy, and their were still major tension surrounding that, or the propaganda at play with getting the Athenians involved in the Ionian revolts in the first place.

Love the shout out to Carlin

**Spain sad noise** while they had been plundered by the English privateer.

not true. they decided to flee from Athens after the army lost at the Thermopylis, and up until the last moment they considered a diplomatic resolution with the persian army (ie ally with them and formally accepting persian rule).

Even though the Persians also had Greek style heavy hoplite infantry too? hmmm....

@@richbob9155 yes. Supplied by Greek cities and mercenaries. The vast majority of Persian forces were not of that type

I think the efficacy of Greek tactics and equipment is proven by the March of the Ten Thousand and later by Alexander's combination of that with stellar cavalry tactics to completely dominate the Persians. That isn't to say other things weren't factors in any of these occurrences. Things like Themistocles' deception at the battle of Salamis and Xerxes killing of his Phoenician captains after the loss were major factors in the Greek victory in the Second Greco-Persian War. I think it would be hard to argue Greek equipment and tactics didn't do plenty of heavy lifting though.

για δες τους απληστους περσες που ηρθαν να φανε το φτωχικο κριθαρενιο ψωμι μας "2700bc"

@@vandur2322 Persias' elite forces were the Immortals, a group of 10.000 heavy armored infantry by the noble families of Persia, so no they werent Greek merceneries. If you try to apply that Persia had less well equipped soldiers that it true, cause you see in Greece every politis (citizen) was oplitis (hoplite) and his life was matter, in contrast with the Persian slave soldiers which were nothing more than walking meat fr the Persian tyrrant

This deserves more likes. Great job

The son who you deliberately sent to his death trap & the son who you betrayed & ignored several times & the son whose head you recieved weeks before the battle you mean ?! Yeah, *no actually* ........ it wasn't that much of a blow to him at all !

The man who foolishly put his whole army into a square so he can be surrounded by archers on horseback. And that was before his son got killed. (Also because of his dumb command to just charge lol)

Only our youngest would make 30 minutes sound like an eternity.

I agree very much. Without chaos, there can be no order, for we could not distinguish it. Who is to say had Mardonius not been killed at Plataea, that the Persian Army would have routed. Allegedly, he was spotted by a Greek soldier, who threw a stone at him, killing him. So here is some food for thought, what if the stone missed?

What if, indeed? Many years ago, my interest in Persian/Iranian history was triggered by a time-travel tale in an Uncle Scrooge comic, when I thought to myself, "Okay, I know about the Greeks, but just what was the Persian setup like anyway?" (Or musings to that effect.) That in turn invited a lifelong avidity for speculations in uchronics, or "alternate history". For a story set in a world where Greece was firmly leashed, Harry Turtledove (a grand master of the genre) produced a piece of short fiction entitled "Counting Potsherds", set around a century after Persian victory. 🤓

"Order out of Chaos" or Ordo ab chao, as the Freemasons and other secret societies love to say