I would agree with you on the tactics, however, their equipment was not bad. Most of their infantry was from the lower classes so these men were poorly equipped, but their cavalry was generally wealthier and had very good equipment as a consequence.
@@Historica2000 i think thats the main thing persians had serviceable infantry but their mainpower was archers and cavalry a theme throughout persia. they failed in greece because this is where the infantry game was important and the greeks were pretty much garbage in every other field only infantry was the best with them and the navy. best example is the parthian empire who had meh infantry , but great archers and when you see their cavalry you realize where they spend all their money and it was the cataphracts literally knights before it was cool completely covered in iron decked out to the max.
![True Size of a Krieg Siege Army (Infantry) [999.M41] 3D Documentary](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k9RNVqx_HQ4/mqdefault.jpg)
Good video
Thanks!
IMO, the Persians had huge numbers and good logistics, but bad tactics, and bad equipment.
I would agree with you on the tactics, however, their equipment was not bad. Most of their infantry was from the lower classes so these men were poorly equipped, but their cavalry was generally wealthier and had very good equipment as a consequence.
@@Historica2000 i think thats the main thing persians had serviceable infantry but their mainpower was archers and cavalry a theme throughout persia. they failed in greece because this is where the infantry game was important and the greeks were pretty much garbage in every other field only infantry was the best with them and the navy. best example is the parthian empire who had meh infantry , but great archers and when you see their cavalry you realize where they spend all their money and it was the cataphracts literally knights before it was cool completely covered in iron decked out to the max.
Totally agree!