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

[Jim Webster]

But from specific (temple) records giving a rather incomplete picture.  Or are you claiming that the entire Achaemenid army consisted of small contingents raised by temples? (I trust not.)

do you actually bother reading what I write? I specifically pointed out that various groups were formed into hatru that did not report to institutions.

[Jim Webster]

Can you produce actual evidence for a population of this size?

yes but be damned if I'm going to produce it twice

[Jim Webster]

I'm abandoning this thread as a waste of time. The more research I do the more fatuous the claimed size of the Persian army seems and life is to short to be bothered. If Patrick wants to believe it, that's entirely up to him

[Patrick Waterson]

The ancient world worked differently. As far as I can see, Soldiers were drawn from certain social classes which had a specific obligation to serve if called. Other classes had no such obligation, indeed the state had a vested interest in keeping them unarmed.  Perhaps you could give an example of an ancient state that maintained a force of 12% of the population on active service outside their country

This, although impeccably Hellenistic, to me looks incorrect for the Biblical period and Achamenid Empire: everyone was armed at need, and only the Egyptians are attested (by Herodotus) as maintaining a separate warrior class - which did not prevent peasants from being mobilised in, for example, the three-sided civil war which Agesilaus ("It is not their numbers I fear but their ignorance") won for his patron pretender.

Since the state controlled the armouries, keeping the bulk of the population unarmed was the ground state of being.  It also meant that weapons were not neglected, sold, passed to outlaws etc. and by combining the census with the armoury lists one knew how many armed men (I hesitate to use the term 'soldiers') one could field.

Charioteers and royal guards were of course permanently maintained, requiring as they did skill levels in excess of those required to move in a group and carry a spear.  Archers would have needed, and Egyptian archers certainly received, regular training and practice.

If we had reliable population figures for the ancient states, it would be possible to show what percentage of the population was maintained on campaigns of conquest: here, Thutmose III, with his extended campaigns and impressive naval logistical support, would probably take the prize, but if there is anything in Diodorus' description of Semiramis' invasion of India, Thutmose might find himself eclipsed.  We do however need reliable figures for these ancient populations, and right now we do not have them.  This is why the 1% full-time professional, 10% optimal and 20% maximum available manpower figures are taken from other, more recent, societies for which we do have reliable population records.  There would seem to be no good reason why these would not retrofit into previous civilisations.

Can you produce actual evidence for a population of this size?

yes but be damned if I'm going to produce it twice

Then if we use the figures we have, Tacitus' 700,000 soliders for Thutmose III is 20% of Jim's 3.5 million population for 18th Dynasty Egypt and QED we have the perfect example of a Biblical period state maintaining up to 20% of its population on extended campaigns outside its borders.  That a significant part of the army would have consisted of Libyans and Ethiopians (Kushites) is why I put 'up to'.

I'm abandoning this thread as a waste of time. The more research I do the more fatuous the claimed size of the Persian army seems and life is to short to be bothered. If Patrick wants to believe it, that's entirely up to him

While I am impressed by Jim's research, I do feel it is dragged into erroneous conclusions.  However neither of us are to be moved so we may as well conclude matters here.

[Mark G]

Only 70 pages Jim, your slacking...

You cannot debate facts with faith, they only accept facts supporting their faith position. 

Quite why they need facts to support their faith baffles me, but still they keep starting arguments to prove their faith, and folk join in.

[Dangun]

At 70 pages, it looks like Herodotus outlasts othismos.

[Erpingham]

But since we now have two people questioning it, try this.

The key extract:
"The World War II armed forces represented about 12 percent of the population and included about
56 percent of the men eligible for military service on the basis of age, health, and mental aptitude."

Thanks for finding this - I'd used this in one of our earlier versions of an army size debate and lost the reference.  As you can clearly see, it does not support your contention, for only once does the US army reach 10% of the population and even then in the text, not the graph, which has 9%.  This isn't too surprising - there are lots of estimates of the US forces in WWII on the internet and they vary from 9-12 % .  Interestingly, there are some much higher estimates of the Civil War percentage elsewhere.  You could have gone with WWI mobilisations in Europe - they come in around 10%.  Napoleon's Grand Armee has about 850,000 Frenchmen out of 38 million, so about 2%.  But where are all these modern examples taking us, except for the fact that armies of 10% were rare and belong to industrial states?  Why not stick with a more like-for-like comparison? 

[Erpingham]

Having read through, I'm happy to wind up.  I think we made some progress on this round because Justin was keen to try to explore the mechanics of the operation, which provided some interest in how ancient logistics worked.  It is a shame he didn't in the end produce a coherent idea of how he thought the Persians might have carried out the operation but at least he put the bare bones out there - the advanced labour corps, the Great 600m Road, the depots, the prebuilt camps with their stacked forage every 20km or so, the occassional corporate hospitality sessions that overcame the monotony of the basic rations.  Nor did we quite bottom the integration with the fleet.  And there are still more aspects which we haven't entirely covered, like the nature of the Persian army (Patrick and Jim, for example, have completely different models of how it worked), or how the army was led (there is an implication of a high degree of organisation, yet suggestions of organised "whip-men", a sort of commissar/provost function) and, of course, the perennial - How could an army of such a assumed high level of discipline and organisation not transfer this to the battlefield?  Plenty there for another thread or another time

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks for finding this - I'd used this in one of our earlier versions of an army size debate and lost the reference.  As you can clearly see, it does not support your contention, for only once does the US army reach 10% of the population and even then in the text, not the graph, which has 9%.

I would like to clear up this point as the goalposts appear to be moving.

What I thought was at issue was whether or not the conventional wisdom was that potential prime military manpower was 10% of population or not.  An example was demanded, so an example was provided.  Where the idea emerged that 10% must be mustered every time, I do not know.

This isn't too surprising - there are lots of estimates of the US forces in WWII on the internet and they vary from 9-12 % .  Interestingly, there are some much higher estimates of the Civil War percentage elsewhere.  You could have gone with WWI mobilisations in Europe - they come in around 10%.  Napoleon's Grand Armee has about 850,000 Frenchmen out of 38 million, so about 2%.  But where are all these modern examples taking us, except for the fact that armies of 10% were rare and belong to industrial states?  Why not stick with a more like-for-like comparison?

Where they take us is to the realisation that prime military manpower is generally accepted to be 10% of population.  A polity making a mass levy as opposed to relying upon a permanent professional army will field a proportion of population closer to 10% than 1% - if it can organise its manpower.  If it can organise and control its manpower well enough, has the weaponry and feels the need, it might field more than 10% of the population.

I suggest that if this subject is to be pursued we might make it a separate topic.  We could then look at any number of attested period forces and make educated guesses about their populations.

[Mark G]

Can you class conscripts' as prime ?

I doubt it, and the actual examples are all of conscripts' in times of extreme

[Dangun]

What I thought was at issue was whether or not the conventional wisdom was that potential prime military manpower was 10% of population or not.  An example was demanded, so an example was provided.... We could then look at any number of attested period forces and make educated guesses about their populations.

I am confused by this particular interest in precedents, because it does not directly address the problem of Herodotus' number.

While the data would be fascinating, looking at precedent mobilizations, only gives us an estimate of what the Persian empire might have been able to mobilize. It does not address the problem at hand.

More directly relevant to the problem of Herodotus' number would be a precedent for any state, moving such a massive number of soldiers, through such a small space, in such a small amount of time.

I don't think that any state has ever moved so many soldiers, through such a small space, in such a small amount of time. It is without precedent. I concede that this is a sweeping statement, but its a succinct claim and therefore falsifiable... if we can come up with a relevant pattern of precedents.

[Patrick Waterson]

Can you class conscripts' as prime ?

Absolutely: this is to do with age category, not level of training.  I thought people knew all this.

I am confused by this particular interest in precedents, because it does not directly address the problem of Herodotus' number.

Which is why I suggest continuing any manpower-as-a-percentage-of-population discussion in a different thread.

More directly relevant to the problem of Herodotus' number would be a precedent for any state, moving such a massive number of soldiers, through such a small space, in such a small amount of time.

Which particular small space would that be?  We actually have a quantifiable 'small space' in the bridge of boats across the Bosphorus, as previously discussed.  Nowhere else do we have such a reliable and quanitifiable restricted transit route or a firm timing for its transit by Xerxes' army.

And I wonder what use it may be seeking a precedent for an event contemporaries considered to be unprecedented.

[Mark G]

We'll Patrick, if you class the Marie Louise's as prime fighting men, it really says all there is to say about your opinions

[Dangun]

Which particular small space would that be?

Take your pick really.
I have no view on Xerxes' route.
Pick a bridge or a campsite or a valley they passed through, whatever you prefer.
I think it will be difficult to find any pre-modern example, let alone a pattern of examples, whereby so many soldiers, passed through such a small space in such a short period of time.
So it would be compelling if we could!

[Erpingham]

  Where the idea emerged that 10% must be mustered every time, I do not know.

Could it be statements like

Where they take us is to the realisation that prime military manpower is generally accepted to be 10% of population. 

You seem to flip between a "generally accepted" rule and the idea it didn't apply every time.  In fact, from the example given, it applied once is over 200 years and that in the mature industrial age.

I think part of the problem is the concept of a super organised Persian state.  What evidence, other than the circular argument from Herodotus' figures, do we have for this?