Could the Persian Empire logistically support an army several million strong?

[Erpingham]

They were specialised for optimisation in a specific role, but arguing from form to function (or perhaps vice versa) there is no reason large grain ships could not have existed earlier, when bulk grain transportation at the behest of national and/or imperial authorities seems to have taken place.

So, as we have no proof such large ships didn't exist before the Romans, we can assume whole fleets of them under the Persians?  Still doesn't make them suitable for beach landings, though.

Isn't that the approach commonly advocated here regarding Herodotus?

No, not seen any evidence of it.  Most people just seem to want to use a critical approach on Herodotus' work, as opposed to an inerrancy approach. 

[Flaminpig0]

[/quote]

Harbours make unloading of cargo somewhat easier but more importantly they are a safe refuge for ships in bad weather, and no matter what the weather if a ship can make it to a harbour it can load/unload its cargo.
[/quote]

Wouldn't the huge expansion of the Persian merchant marine necessary to support such a humongous army mean that a large number of extra sailors would need to be trained? as well as extra dock facilities etc.

[Justin Swanton]

Harbours make unloading of cargo somewhat easier but more importantly they are a safe refuge for ships in bad weather, and no matter what the weather if a ship can make it to a harbour it can load/unload its cargo.

Wouldn't the huge expansion of the Persian merchant marine necessary to support such a humongous army mean that a large number of extra sailors would need to be trained? as well as extra dock facilities etc.

Xerxes had four years to do that, and he dug a canal in the bargain.

[Justin Swanton]

They were specialised for optimisation in a specific role, but arguing from form to function (or perhaps vice versa) there is no reason large grain ships could not have existed earlier, when bulk grain transportation at the behest of national and/or imperial authorities seems to have taken place.

So, as we have no proof such large ships didn't exist before the Romans, we can assume whole fleets of them under the Persians?  Still doesn't make them suitable for beach landings, though.

Large ships would have helped but are they necessary? The numbers work using normal-sized merchant vessels.

[Erpingham]

I tend to go with the idea that  ancient historians are not equivalent to modern practitioners  in terms of commitment to accuracy, attributing sources or even having a similar idea to what  constitutes truth and that they were more than capable of creating  speeches  to more effectively  convey a point to their audience.  However,  in this case I suspect that Herodotus would have attributed Demaratus if that is where he had got the quote from.

I find it useful to be guided by Thucydides on the thinking behind speeches in classical histories

As to the various speeches made on the eve of the war, or in its course, I have found it difficult to retain a memory of the precise words which I had heard spoken; and so it was with those who brought me reports. But I have made the persons say what it seemed to me most opportune for them to say in view of each situation; at the same time, I have adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said.

So, we may have a memory of a real conversation here, which Herodotus has elaborated to indicate what he thought was the Persian mentality.  Or it may just be a device to insert a commentary on Persian thinking based on his various sources, without an actual real conversation having taken place.

[Flaminpig0]

Harbours make unloading of cargo somewhat easier but more importantly they are a safe refuge for ships in bad weather, and no matter what the weather if a ship can make it to a harbour it can load/unload its cargo.

Wouldn't the huge expansion of the Persian merchant marine necessary to support such a humongous army mean that a large number of extra sailors would need to be trained? as well as extra dock facilities etc.

Xerxes had four years to do that, and he dug a canal in the bargain.

Just walk me through the process of how these extra sailors would be trained- are we  looking at setting up a series of maritime training colleges or similar?

[Erpingham]

Large ships would have helped but are they necessary? The numbers work using normal-sized merchant vessels.

Patrick is the advocate of large ships, so he can answer that.  But I agree, invoking them isn't necessary.  In terms of numbers working, I'd remind everyone of the sage words of Duncan that just matching Herodotus' ship numbers to his army numbers isn't proof of anything, other than the fact Herodotus had the wit to ensure they were compatable.

[Justin Swanton]

Harbours make unloading of cargo somewhat easier but more importantly they are a safe refuge for ships in bad weather, and no matter what the weather if a ship can make it to a harbour it can load/unload its cargo.

Wouldn't the huge expansion of the Persian merchant marine necessary to support such a humongous army mean that a large number of extra sailors would need to be trained? as well as extra dock facilities etc.

Xerxes had four years to do that, and he dug a canal in the bargain.

Just walk me through the process of how these extra sailors would be trained- are we  looking at setting up a series of maritime training colleges or similar?

1. Build new ships.

2. Move a few experienced crewmen to each of these new ships.

3. Add raw conscripts to the mix and let them learn on the job.

A bit like the Royal Navy in the 18th century. You were grabbed by a press-gang, tricked/forced into accepting His Majesty's shilling, and bingo! you were a sailor.

[Justin Swanton]

I tend to go with the idea that  ancient historians are not equivalent to modern practitioners  in terms of commitment to accuracy, attributing sources or even having a similar idea to what  constitutes truth and that they were more than capable of creating  speeches  to more effectively  convey a point to their audience.  However,  in this case I suspect that Herodotus would have attributed Demaratus if that is where he had got the quote from.

I find it useful to be guided by Thucydides on the thinking behind speeches in classical histories

As to the various speeches made on the eve of the war, or in its course, I have found it difficult to retain a memory of the precise words which I had heard spoken; and so it was with those who brought me reports. But I have made the persons say what it seemed to me most opportune for them to say in view of each situation; at the same time, I have adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said.

So, we may have a memory of a real conversation here, which Herodotus has elaborated to indicate what he thought was the Persian mentality.  Or it may just be a device to insert a commentary on Persian thinking based on his various sources, without an actual real conversation having taken place.

Not quite. Thucydides says a real conversation did take place, but he can't remember the exact words nor can those who report to him. Both however know the gist of the speech, so he gives it and fleshes it out with the kind of things the speaker would have said on the occasion. That's not fabrication a nihilo.

Notice above all that he admits what he has done. In other words he gives the reader an exact gauge by which to judge the accuracy of the reported speeches. Hardly the approach of a propagandist.

[Flaminpig0]

Harbours make unloading of cargo somewhat easier but more importantly they are a safe refuge for ships in bad weather, and no matter what the weather if a ship can make it to a harbour it can load/unload its cargo.

Wouldn't the huge expansion of the Persian merchant marine necessary to support such a humongous army mean that a large number of extra sailors would need to be trained? as well as extra dock facilities etc.

Xerxes had four years to do that, and he dug a canal in the bargain.

Just walk me through the process of how these extra sailors would be trained- are we  looking at setting up a series of maritime training colleges or similar?

1. Build new ships.

2. Move a  few experienced crewmen to each of these new ships.

3. Add raw conscripts to the mix and let them learn on the job.

A bit like the Royal Navy in the 18th century. You were grabbed by a press-gang, tricked/forced into accepting His Majesty's shilling, and bingo! you were a sailor.
[/quote
Leaving aside the obvious that you would have crippled your merchant marine by making it dependent on improperly manned merchant ships you have the other issue that merchant ships in the ancient world were privately owned; not at all equivalent to  the Royal Navy of the C18th.

[Erpingham]

Not quite. Thucydides says a real conversation did take place, but he can't remember the exact words nor can those who report to him. Both however know the gist of the speech, so he gives it and fleshes it out with the kind of things the speaker would have said on the occasion. That's not fabrication a nihilo.

Fair point - it depends on that phrase translated "at the same time" I suppose.  Perhaps I was being too colloquial.

Notice above all that he admits what he has done. In other words he gives the reader an exact gauge by which to judge the accuracy of the reported speeches. Hardly the approach of a propagandist.

Has anyone accused Thucydides of propangandism?  I haven't.  But it is a useful passage from a person from a similar time showing that writers were not simple primitives - they deliberately applied craft to their writing.  A good reason to apply a critical approach, IMO.

[Jim Webster]

Key things to remember is that these big ships didn't exist earlier ...

They were specialised for optimisation in a specific role, but arguing from form to function (or perhaps vice versa) there is no reason large grain ships could not have existed earlier, when bulk grain transportation at the behest of national and/or imperial authorities seems to have taken place.

These large grain ships were amazingly seaworthy vessels because we've found none of them wrecked. Not only that but no Greek author ever mentions them.
Yet the really large Roman merchant ships were mentioned by contemporaries and found at the bottom of the sea.

So I'm pretty happy with the idea that in this case, a total lack of evidence shows that nobody bothered building them

[aligern]

We should not become too enamoured of historians as 'truth tellers' even nowadays. As I said earlier, we have to look at sources for what they  meant in terms of the writer's purposes at he time. Herodotus has been accused of being the father of lies. Now he may be less of that than some have alleged, but he certainly retold many tales and had purposes that were not just a matter of retelling fact. Modern historians can have just as much bias, they are more likely to avoid fantasy simply because we have so much more available information these days.
As to the numbers argument , are we to believe that Xerxes stripped his empire of troops and the rich, temples and traders of all protection. Let's guess that he could march with 50% of the military potential . For comparison it s likely that Rome could put about 25% of its military in the field, on campaign in Dacia or Persia, At 50% going on the Greek expedition gives Persia a huge military of 2 million fighting men. It is very unlikely that these were raised on the basis of every free adult male being conscripted because much of the empire was not tribal, it was a sophisticated society with labour specialisation and also supported many useless mouths such as priests and administrators as well as soldiers and policemen, merchants, craftsmen , the rich , bureaucrats and so on. Is there any evidence that the Persian empire had huge garrisons and camps? Is there any information on army size that is not a natter of a Greek author repeating a topos on the numbers of Orientals?

[Prufrock]

Thinking about the propaganda angle, wouldn't the Greek writers have just as much reason to boast about beating a 200 000 man Persian army as beating a 3 400 000 man one? Propaganda works if it is believable to those for whom it is destined. People in that era would have known that the Persians could not possibly field armies of several million men if in fact they didn't. If 200 000 was in fact the upper limit for a Persian army then Herodotus' contemporaries would have laughed at his figures. Propaganda exercise flops.

I would suggest reading Peter Green himself (p62, but a couple of pages either side will give better context) rather than attacking a straw propagandist!

https://books.google.co.jp/books/about/The_Greco_Persian_Wars.html?id=mMpagtpnxHIC&redir_esc=y

As an example, if I told you that 80 Rhodesian soldiers utterly defeated an enemy camp of 5000 guerrillas all armed to the teeth with the latest in Russian and Chinese military hardware, killing over 1000 of them, would you think that a propaganda exercise a la Herodotus?

Wait – you want me to put modern Rhodesians into service in support or your argument, but you dismiss Maurice and Young?

One needs to look at this in terms of ships. 4700 tons per day means 47 ships with a carrying capacity of 100 tons or 16 ships with a carrying capacity of 300 tons. Choose a middle figure and say 30 ships that must offload each day or 3 ships an hour. Not actually such a big deal.

I would suggest that you are being unrealistic.

There is also the issue of choke points as mentioned by pretty much everyone. H 7.176 mentions the route narrowing to a space the width of a wagon in two places. Try getting 1,700,000 fighting men let alone the other 3.5M plus  followers, cavalry horses, baggage animals, food on the hoof, and baggage carts through spaces that narrow in timely fashion!

Herodotus mentions the chokepoint being at Trachis, which is just before Thermopolae. It is there precisely that Xerxes' problems began, not during the trip from the Hellespont to Greece.

Good, so you do agree that chokepoints are an issue.

There are of course other objections too, but one that I don't think has been noted in this thread so far is the 'shock and awe factor' that 10 white horses, a chariot, 10 more white horses, 1000 picked cavalrymen, 1000 picked foot, and the 10,000 Immortals elicits in 7.40-41 & 7.55. If the army was really 1,700,000 strong, would so much be made of these comparatively small elite contingents?

Why mention 10 white horses for an army of 200 000 for that matter? The context of the passage is important. Pythius the Lydian had asked Xerxes to release one of his five sons from the army to stay with him at home. Xerxes, furious, has the son executed and "set one half of his body on the right side of the road and the other on the left, so that the army would pass between them." It is not stated how wide the 'road' is, nor if it is the entire army or just a contingent of it that passes by. The army is in three sections: hoi-polloi come first, then a gap, then the king with his elite troops, then a gap, then more hoi-polloi. The mention of the white horses etc. is clearly meant to underscore the magnificence of Xerxes.

Yes, the context is important. The entire army as it was constituted at that stage is marching through (if we are to credit 7.39 & 7.41), yet those were the units mentioned. If the army were 50,000-80,000 strong, then perhaps that would make sense; if the army were 1,000,000 or larger, we might expect to be impressed by mention of contingents from various exotic places, and in larger numbers.

But this is minor by comparison to the logistical problems posed by moving, feeding and providing water for such a massive army.

You will believe what you want to believe of course, and nothing anyone here says will change your mind, but you are not convincing anyone either, so it's at a bit of an impasse.

[Jim Webster]

There is also the issue of choke points as mentioned by pretty much everyone. H 7.176 mentions the route narrowing to a space the width of a wagon in two places. Try getting 1,700,000 fighting men let alone the other 3.5M plus  followers, cavalry horses, baggage animals, food on the hoof, and baggage carts through spaces that narrow in timely fashion!

Herodotus mentions the chokepoint being at Trachis, which is just before Thermopolae. It is there precisely that Xerxes' problems began, not during the trip from the Hellespont to Greece.

Good, so you do agree that chokepoints are an issue.

What I took away from Maurice was that the whole stretch from before the Bridge until after you get to the river after the Gallipoli  peninsular was that the whole thing was a choke point. Pretty much the whole army has to follow the same road. When he talks of pack animals in single file marching alongside infantry you realise how choked the area is.