What weapons did the Persian army use and how did they set up there military along with the amount of people?

Answer 1

The backbone of the army was the Royal Guard, 10,000 elite foot soldiers known as the "Immortals." They served as the reserve and were usually around the Persian king during the battle. Other units were varied in origin, equipment and techniques. The Persian empire stretched over thousands of miles and included many different lands/peoples.

Their equipment included bow, short lance, iron sword, woven shields. They were not as heavily armoured as the Greeks, nor did they have the discipline of the massed phalanxes of the Greeks. The oriental cavalry with their archers could not withstand a concerted attack by the Greeks. There was little coordination between infantry and cavalry.

Their customary formation had the infantry in the middle with the irregular cavalry on the wings. The Persians did have a powerful fleet. They also employed Greek mercenaries. War elephants and scythed chariots were used by not coordinated very well. The main tactic was overwhelming numbers.

At Gaugelmala, they had 60,000-80,000 infantry, 12,000 cavalry, 100 scythed chariots, and 15 war elephants.

Answer 2

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
What weapons did the Persian army use and how did they set up there military along with the amount of people?

Answer 3

Persian Weapons

Answer 4

This question has been answered pretty well already, but I just felt like adding something preemptivly in case some one said 1,000,000. Herodotus tells us that the Persians came to Greece with 1,000,000 soldiers. This is a gross exageration, as Herodotus liked to jack up the numbers by a factor of 10. 100,000, still a large army for the time, is a far more likely number, supported by both historical and archaeological evidence.

The archer was the dominant Persian soldier, and an archer was depicted on Persian coins.

Answer 5

Initially the Persians were horse archers using powerful recurve bows. As they conquered an Empire they used the forces of subjugated peoples in their army, and thus acquired chariot cavalry , light infantry and engineering capabilities. What they grievously lacked was heavy infantry - and it was in this that the Greeks had an advantage. Logically the Persian Army was a more modern formation than the forces that defeated it. The most critical lack was good and competent leadership at the top - not an unknown problem for absolute autocracies.

Answer 6

Light infantry
Charioteers using scythed chariots
Slingers & Archers

The slingers & archers would usually start the skirmish by firing their missiles at the opponents after which they would pull back to the rear of the formation.

The 2nd row would consist of the scythed chariot whose row was to cut the opponent's infantry to pieces & then followed by the infantry to finish off what's left of the opponent.

Unfortunately, the chariots were hard to handle & were in many ways inferior to the heavy cavalry which were more nimble & manouverable. The chariots also found their nemeis in the phalanx formation with their 7 ot 10 ft pikes which would hold horses at bay.

Answer 7

As the site tells, the Persians in the time of Alexander were heavy with missile troops. Slingers, archers etc. The infantry depended upon the spear (sarissa) and, of course, the sword. The site gives some breakdown of their levies and components thereof. It appears to be accurate contrasted with reading of more pedantic historical sites.
http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/Alexanderama.html is excellent for an overview. You writing a paper or is this for interest?

Answer 8

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/axO7O

Oh yes, I wish I could! I like those sort of things but it should be a real army not something funny like those basiji women that march with chador & ....

Answer 9

I don't know and I don't care