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

[Imperial Dave]

a plague of locusts springs to mind!

[Justin Swanton]

nobody produces surplus grain except by accident.

Beg pardon, but this is quite incorrect.  Egypt, for example, produced surplus grain all the time, except during a famine.  One should also remember that taxation was usually taken in grain and livestock, not coin, prior to the Roman Empire, and this meant that producing a significant surplus was built into people's lifestyles.

If it's built into the system it's not a surplus. You don't say you've got surplus in your salary because the government takes tax off it.

A surplus is grain for which there is no home. Growing grain to pay tax with is no different to growing grain to eat. It's not surplus, it's already allocated

good point Jim although you could argue for the definition either way. I definitely take your point that this is allocated already its part of what people need to eat and to live off through payment

certainly I think that's where Justin and I had got to. He felt that Xerxes could block 'exports outside the Empire' without political damage provided he bought the grain himself. (Apologies if I have misrepresented Justin here)

No, that's spot on. Bought it or levied it as a bearable tax. I'm minded of late Roman annonia which in Egypt could run up to 45% of net production and 25% gross (¾ to 2 artabas per aroura with a late Roman yield of 7-8 artabas per aroura, falling from 10-12 artabas per aroura in the first century AD), and that doesn't include other taxes.

I suspect he could, but I don't think there was all that much grain exported to outside the Empire, the Empire was so damned big.

Keeping in mind our 2-week caravan travel limit rule, the only area to worry about is Egypt, the Syrian\Palestinian coastline and Asia Minor. The rest of the Empire feeds itself. I don't have the grain production levels for Asia Minor but it appears to have been an important food producer. See here, here and here.

[Patrick Waterson]

If it's built into the system it's not a surplus. You don't say you've got surplus in your salary because the government takes tax off it.

A surplus is grain for which there is no home. Growing grain to pay tax with is no different to growing grain to eat. It's not surplus, it's already allocated

The vital consideration here is the absolute amount of grain produced, not how it is defined.  If you are being taxed so the state can store up grain, then overall respective to the community's food requirements you are producing a surplus.  It ends up being retained or allocated as a state-controlled surplus.  Nobody needs it at present, but it is there in case it is needed in future.

Mediaeval Italian cities had a similar, if usually less well-handled, system; in Florence it was called the abbondanza and it was a state organisation to ensure that a surplus of grain was stored against possible future emergencies.

Please can I have some evidence that the Persian state managed the grain market throughout the Empire
Given that with land tenure the state in Egypt didn't even control all the land. The land was held by temple estates and large private estates, often of Persian and other nobles, and we know from the record they gave orders to buy and sell commodies

In effect they were acting as private speculators while they thought they could get away with it (Arsames in Egypt was notorious for this and other fiddles).  But the King of Kings had to get his cut first.

Two points which indicate state management of the 'grain market' or at least overall grain distribution:
1) There was no grain market as such - the Achaemenids did not have markets.  They referred to Greeks, who did, as "people who come together in one place to cheat and forswear each other".
2) "The sixth province was Egypt and the neighbouring parts of Libya, and Cyrene and Barca, all of which were included in the province of Egypt. From here came seven hundred talents, besides the income in silver from the fish of the lake Moeris; [3] besides that silver and the assessment of grain that was given also, seven hundred talents were paid; for a hundred and twenty thousand bushels of grain were also assigned to the Persians quartered at the White Wall of Memphis and their allies in Egypt." (Herodotus III.91)

Local distribution and arangements between satraps were presumably not micromanaged by the King, but accrual and allocation of supplies for garrisons was definitely determined by the throne, not the market.

Does the term 'ostraca' ring a bell?

yes and I note with interest the fact that there are not heaps of distinctive Egyptian produced broken Amphorae discovered by archaeologists on the sites of five huge grain depots

The point about ostraca is that they were carried off and reused.  People made notes on them.  People wrote prayers on them.  People voted with them (Athenians could actually tell politicians to go away ...).  They did not hang around in situ waiting for archaeologists to find them (except when deposited en masse at the Tomb of Osiris or similar).

Regarding the nature of Achaemenid rule, the opening of Book VII of Herodotus is instructive.  Xerxes succeeds (peaceably) and is not inclined to attack Greece but rather deal with Egypt.  He does, but meanwhile Mardonius and certain Greek exiles work on him, persuading him there are oracles to fulfil, glory to be had, an Empire to expand, vegenance to be taken.  So once Egypt was subdued (and handed over to a vicious governor whose misrule would guarantee another revolt) Xerxes called his notables to him to discuss what to do about Greece.  They spoke, giving their points of view, and he then made the decision.  How did he make his decision?  He followed a dream.  But once the decision was made, it was binding.  Only the King could change the decision (and he did - twice).

[Justin Swanton]

Someone (Justin?) was asking about Byzantine figures

The approximate maximum weight a horse or mule can transport over reasonably long distances is about 250 1b (114kg) and a little more over short stretches, although the optimum has generally been set at about 200lb in modern and immediately pre-modern pack-trains. In the late third-century Edict of Diocletian (14.11) a load of 200 Roman pounds (65.49 kg/ 144 1b) is prescribed; a sixth-century source gives mules a total burden of 156—66 Roman pounds (110—16 1b/ 50—3 kg). Similar limits are established by the imperial legislation on the public post. A mid-tenth-century Byzantine text gives somewhat higher values ...... : three categories of load are specified: (a) saddle—horses carrying a man (presumably not armoured and carrying military panoply) and their own barley were loaded with four modioi each -106 Roman pounds=75 1b (34 kg); (b) unridden saddle-horses carried eight modioi—212 Roman pounds—I50 1b (68 kg); and (c) pack-animals loaded with barley carried ten modioi—265 Roman pounds= 187 1b (85 kg). Thus the maximum permitted load for an animal in the imperial baggage train in the ninth and tenth centuries was set at 10 modioi without the pack- saddle (stigma) and harness which, according to the legislation of the fourth sixth centuries, weighed approx. 50—60 Roman pounds (35—42 1b/ 16—19 kg, equivalent to 51—62 Byzantine pounds).


From Appendix 1 in Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565-1204 by John F. Haldon.  Most of the Appendix can be viewed via Google. Appendix 2 is on using grain to feed armies but alas most of it is inaccessible.  I suspect some members of the forum own the book and may be able to help.

Taking the earliest limit of 65,5kg, that means 33 days on the road and all the load is gone, which means 11 days travel and you still have 2/3 of your load which limits you to about 200km. Here is the revised map:

[Jim Webster]

certainly I think that's where Justin and I had got to. He felt that Xerxes could block 'exports outside the Empire' without political damage provided he bought the grain himself. (Apologies if I have misrepresented Justin here)

No, that's spot on. Bought it or levied it as a bearable tax. I'm minded of late Roman annonia which in Egypt could run up to 45% of net production and 25% gross (¾ to 2 artabas per aroura with a late Roman yield of 7-8 artabas per aroura, falling from 10-12 artabas per aroura in the first century AD), and that doesn't include other taxes.

I suspect he could, but I don't think there was all that much grain exported to outside the Empire, the Empire was so damned big.

Keeping in mind our 2-week caravan travel limit rule, the only area to worry about is Egypt, the Syrian\Palestinian coastline and Asia Minor. The rest of the Empire feeds itself. I don't have the grain production levels for Asia Minor but it appears to have been an important food producer. See here, here and here.

What is interesting is how large a wheat producer Turkey now is, producing 3% of world output. There is a map of current growing regions at https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2011/07/Turkey/  which does seem to fit in with the book where it talks about the expansion in the 'middle' Roman Empire and huge granaries being built. It seems that the Roman road building, shifting to wheeled transport, did help some areas.
certainly looking at the map you could see why large armies could traverse the Royal Road and why Xerxes decided to winter and concentrate his army at Sardis.
Whether Asia Minor would have much grain to export after supporting Xerxes and his concentrating army over winter is another issue, but certainly you can why armies appear to have campaigned across it so comparatively easily in the ancient period 

[Jim Webster]

If it's built into the system it's not a surplus. You don't say you've got surplus in your salary because the government takes tax off it.

A surplus is grain for which there is no home. Growing grain to pay tax with is no different to growing grain to eat. It's not surplus, it's already allocated

The vital consideration here is the absolute amount of grain produced, not how it is defined.  If you are being taxed so the state can store up grain, then overall respective to the community's food requirements you are producing a surplus.  It ends up being retained or allocated as a state-controlled surplus.  Nobody needs it at present, but it is there in case it is needed in future.

But it's not a surplus. It's not 'in case' it will be needed in the future. it will be needed in the future. You have to have it because in the next couple of years there will be a poor harvest and if you don't have the food, there will be social and political disruption which will mean that the next harvest is also bad because of the actions taken to restore order.

[Justin Swanton]

Stepping back to take another overview, I sum up the progress of the thread below:



Keep watching to see how it ends...keep watching some more...and some more...

[Jim Webster]

The point about ostraca is that they were carried off and reused.  People made notes on them.  People wrote prayers on them.  People voted with them (Athenians could actually tell politicians to go away ...).  They did not hang around in situ waiting for archaeologists to find them (except when deposited en masse at the Tomb of Osiris or similar).

And the huge mountain of them in Ostia merely proves that the Romans were illiterate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio

To expect assiduous note takers to come along and remove the largest heaps of broken pottery in Northern Greece thus leaving no archaeological trace is probably pushing the envelope a bit

[Jim Webster]

Stepping back to take another overview, I sum up the progress of the thread below:



Keep watching to see how it ends...keep watching some more...and some more...

Genius, pure genius!

[Justin Swanton]

What is interesting is how large a wheat producer Turkey now is, producing 3% of world output. There is a map of current growing regions at https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2011/07/Turkey/  which does seem to fit in with the book where it talks about the expansion in the 'middle' Roman Empire and huge granaries being built. It seems that the Roman road building, shifting to wheeled transport, did help some areas.
certainly looking at the map you could see why large armies could traverse the Royal Road and why Xerxes decided to winter and concentrate his army at Sardis.
Whether Asia Minor would have much grain to export after supporting Xerxes and his concentrating army over winter is another issue, but certainly you can why armies appear to have campaigned across it so comparatively easily in the ancient period 

[Justin Swanton]

The point about ostraca is that they were carried off and reused.  People made notes on them.  People wrote prayers on them.  People voted with them (Athenians could actually tell politicians to go away ...).  They did not hang around in situ waiting for archaeologists to find them (except when deposited en masse at the Tomb of Osiris or similar).

And the huge mountain of them in Ostia merely proves that the Romans were illiterate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio

To expect assiduous note takers to come along and remove the largest heaps of broken pottery in Northern Greece thus leaving no archaeological trace is probably pushing the envelope a bit

The Wiki article makes clear that largely one type of amphora - the Dressel 20 - containing exclusively one type of produce - olive oil - was deposited at Testaccio. This appears to be because Dressel 20 amphorae that had contained olive oil could not be reused in any way: they did not make useful shards when broken up and they were fatty and rancid from the residual oil. The shard pile was carefully arranged and built up by the state. This is deliberate dumping, not just shard fragments lying around. There is nothing equivalent to it anywhere else in the Roman Empire, which suggests that shards from other types of amphorae used to transport other kinds of produce were reused in a way that left no archaeological traces. Which confirms Patrick's hypothesis (what can I say?). 

[Erpingham]

It is an understandable intellectual approach - there is nothing morally reprehensible about expressing an outlook based on one's own culture - but it is not legitimate for understanding other cultures at different periods in history.

But alas its all we have   It is probably a philosophical difference in approach to the past between us.  You believe that the historian can completely discard their own culture in looking at the past and I don't.  Where we agree, I think, is that we must endeavour to recognise our cultural biases and seek to minimise their impact. 

[Erpingham]

There is nothing equivalent to it anywhere else in the Roman Empire, which suggests that shards from other types of amphorae used to transport other kinds of produce were reused in a way that left no archaeological traces. Which confirms Patrick's hypothesis (what can I say?). 

Visit any Roman archaeological site and one thing you will see are amphora fragments.  People didn't "transport them away", they threw them in with the rubbish.  Any site handling amphorae - passing through or end use - is going to generate bits of broken amphora.  There is no way sites involved in this operation wouldn't turn up amphorae fragments, even if not on the scale of Monte Testaccio, if the mass amphora use theory is correct.  We should also expect to find some amphora filled wrecks directly associatable with the operation, as the naval conveyor would expect to lose some ships to the weather, as Justin has also allowed for above.  However, the "everything in amphorae" theory is a theory.  So far, no evidence of amphorae for bulk grain carriage at this time has been produced.

[Justin Swanton]

There is nothing equivalent to it anywhere else in the Roman Empire, which suggests that shards from other types of amphorae used to transport other kinds of produce were reused in a way that left no archaeological traces. Which confirms Patrick's hypothesis (what can I say?). 

Visit any Roman archaeological site and one thing you will see are amphora fragments.  People didn't "transport them away", they threw them in with the rubbish.  Any site handling amphorae - passing through or end use - is going to generate bits of broken amphora.  There is no way sites involved in this operation wouldn't turn up amphorae fragments, even if not on the scale of Monte Testaccio, if the mass amphora use theory is correct.  We should also expect to find some amphora filled wrecks directly associatable with the operation, as the naval conveyor would expect to lose some ships to the weather, as Justin has also allowed for above.  However, the "everything in amphorae" theory is a theory.  So far, no evidence of amphorae for bulk grain carriage at this time has been produced.

Fine. The point though is that the only big pile of amphorae shards lying around are at Testaccio, and they are there simply because they could not be reused. Olive oil was not the only product shipped in bulk to Rome in amphorae. So a lot of amphorae at one site - one of the Persian food dumps for example - will not necessarily leave a lot of shard fragments in the archaeological record. If Rome is our gauge, amphorae used to carry anything other than olive oil will largely disappear.

[Jim Webster]

The point about ostraca is that they were carried off and reused.  People made notes on them.  People wrote prayers on them.  People voted with them (Athenians could actually tell politicians to go away ...).  They did not hang around in situ waiting for archaeologists to find them (except when deposited en masse at the Tomb of Osiris or similar).

And the huge mountain of them in Ostia merely proves that the Romans were illiterate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio

To expect assiduous note takers to come along and remove the largest heaps of broken pottery in Northern Greece thus leaving no archaeological trace is probably pushing the envelope a bit

The Wiki article makes clear that largely one type of amphora - the Dressel 20 - containing exclusively one type of produce - olive oil - was deposited at Testaccio. This appears to be because Dressel 20 amphorae that had contained olive oil could not be reused in any way: they did not make useful shards when broken up and they were fatty and rancid from the residual oil. The shard pile was carefully arranged and built up by the state. This is deliberate dumping, not just shard fragments lying around. There is nothing equivalent to it anywhere else in the Roman Empire, which suggests that shards from other types of amphorae used to transport other kinds of produce were reused in a way that left no archaeological traces. Which confirms Patrick's hypothesis (what can I say?). 

pretty well every Roman site has bits of broken amphorae,
http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue1/tyers_index.html for British ones
The reason there's no evidence of amphorae along the coast where the depots were is because nobody transported large quantities of grain in amphorae. You carried in in bags or probably more rarely, bulk.