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

[Jim Webster]

Exodus 1:11 and Manfred Bietak's excavations at el Daba.

I don't remember seeing comments about massed granaries at these excavations, they were more interested in Minoan frescos

[Jim Webster]

In the third place, the manpower drain is unequal.  The majority of the population is concentrated in the great breadbaskets of Mesopotamia and Egypt, but the fraction of the population conscripted from these areas seems minimal compared to the relatively heavy exactions from the less developed tribal areas.  In the latter, the overage men and below-age boys could manage the herds for a few months while the women get on with their gardens.

more handwavium. I'm sorry Patrick but that's nonsense. If you leave overage men and below age boys looking after herds for knocking on for two years, you probably don't have any herds left. Your neighbours will have borrowed them.
Also have you a clue what the annual calving of a herd or lambing of a flock is like. It's every bit as labour intensive as harvest

You are making no sense at all

[Jim Webster]

I've been reading this thread with interest, and it just struck me that all of the arguments for the size are premised on a one way trip, and a total lack of enemies around the Persian empire.

Which was pretty much the case in 480 BC.  Nobody was looking to invade it; everyone seems to have been holding their breath waiting for the outcome of Xerxes' and Carthage's invasion of Hellas.  But just in case there was a problem, given the 50 million population estimate, the stay-behind governors still had another 5 million (overage) potential conscripts scattered around the Empire to deal with adventurous intruders.

Do you honestly believe that?
Just asking

[Flaminpig0]

.
Exodus 1:11 and Manfred Bietak's excavations at el Daba.

Am I right in thinking that in some versions of Exodus 1.11 store cities are translated as treasure cities or fortified cities?

[Justin Swanton]

If we work on the Persian economy being geared to manage the odd war (with several years preparation before each war) why should numbers be a problem? North Africa - using pretty much the same farming methods as Persia - was capable of producing enough excess grain to feed the greater part of 1 000 000 Romans annually. Was the Roman Empire a subsistence economy? If it wasn't a subsistence economy why should the Persian Empire be one? I think we can give the Persian administration the brains to foresee the same potential problems we have seen here, and Persian farming methods the ability to overcome them (in the same way the African farming methods met their own challenges). What is superhuman about laying up enough food to compensate for the absence of 5 million males for two years?

As a corollary, how many wars did the Persian Empire fight from its foundation in 550BC until the Greek campaign of 480? How long did they take and much preparation was spent on them? What portion were they of that 70-year period? This would give an indication of the extent to which the Persian economy was structured for war.

[Dangun]

If we work on the Persian economy being geared to manage the odd war (with several years preparation before each war) why should numbers be a problem? North Africa - using pretty much the same farming methods as Persia - was capable of producing enough excess grain to feed the greater part of 1 000 000 Romans annually. Was the Roman Empire a subsistence economy? If it wasn't a subsistence economy why should the Persian Empire be one?... What is superhuman about laying up enough food to compensate for the absence of 5 million males for two years?

OK. Quite apart from Egyptian agriculture not being the same as Persian agriculture, or supplementing civilian Roman diets in peace time not being the same as supplying Persian armies in wartime...

If Rome is an appropriate comparable, why couldn't Rome do this for themselves? Why could Rome never field an army of over 3 million? Why was the entire military machine of the far more expansionary Roman Empire only a tenth of the size of the Herodotus number for Persia? Moreover, the Roman military was spread about the Empire such that no more than 5% of the Herodotus Persian number was ever fielded by the Romans in a single battle. Did the Persian military master some technology that failed to express itself in any other relic of their civilization?

Any comparison with Rome makes the Herodotus number for Persia look even more ridiculous.

[Jim Webster]

If we work on the Persian economy being geared to manage the odd war (with several years preparation before each war) why should numbers be a problem? North Africa - using pretty much the same farming methods as Persia - was capable of producing enough excess grain to feed the greater part of 1 000 000 Romans annually. Was the Roman Empire a subsistence economy? If it wasn't a subsistence economy why should the Persian Empire be one? I think we can give the Persian administration the brains to foresee the same potential problems we have seen here, and Persian farming methods the ability to overcome them (in the same way the African farming methods met their own challenges). What is superhuman about laying up enough food to compensate for the absence of 5 million males for two years?

As a corollary, how many wars did the Persian Empire fight from its foundation in 550BC until the Greek campaign of 480? How long did they take and much preparation was spent on them? What portion were they of that 70-year period? This would give an indication of the extent to which the Persian economy was structured for war.

It's an interesting comparison. The Romans had, as you say a flourishing agriculture. Depending on various estimates the Empire had a population of about 70 million, perhaps higher (100,000 is mentioned). At the maximum under Constantine they had perhaps 645,000 although careful examination of evidence of unit returns suggest it might be nearer 500,000.
Even in civil wars (where the largest number of Roman troops was ever put into the field because they had to find both sides,) it's unlikely there were ever more that 300,000 men in the field.

So the claim is that Xerxes had 12% of his population on campaign with him outside the Empire. In comparison the Romans had less than 1% of their population in the Empire
One of the largest armies taken outside the Empire to campaign in Persia was Julian's which might have had 95,000 men, or 0.13 of the Empire's population

So that's how the Roman Empire managed to produce food to feed the city of Rome. It left it's people at home in agriculture rather than conscripting them into the army.
The more I look at the figures, the more I'm convinced that Xerxes might have managed to put an army together of 300,000 at the absolute maximum

[Patrick Waterson]

please show me a multiyear campaign which took 50% of the men of military age away from the country?

Look at the campaigns of Thutmose III, especially Years 6-8.

As for these fabulous huge reserves of grain, please show me the excavation of the massive granaries. Please show me some evidence rather than wild surmise.

When archaeologists start getting excited over finding granaries rather than palaces and tombs, I shall have plenty to show you.  For ther present we just have to be content with written accounts and such details as Egypt's historical ability to provide huge quantities of surplus grain during classical times.

If you leave overage men and below age boys looking after herds for knocking on for two years, you probably don't have any herds left. Your neighbours will have borrowed them.

Not if they also have contributed their young men to the Achaemenid war effort.  Xerxes' universal mass mobilisation begins to make additional sense.  The remaining male population will be older and less inclined to do anything except defend their own.

Also have you a clue what the annual calving of a herd or lambing of a flock is like. It's every bit as labour intensive as harvest

With modern species, yes.  Do you know how dependent upon human help the species of the period were?

Am I right in thinking that in some versions of Exodus 1.11 store cities are translated as treasure cities or fortified cities?

The authoritative version is the original Hebrew, which has them as ori msknuth, 'cities of provisions'.

[Justin Swanton]

If we work on the Persian economy being geared to manage the odd war (with several years preparation before each war) why should numbers be a problem? North Africa - using pretty much the same farming methods as Persia - was capable of producing enough excess grain to feed the greater part of 1 000 000 Romans annually. Was the Roman Empire a subsistence economy? If it wasn't a subsistence economy why should the Persian Empire be one?... What is superhuman about laying up enough food to compensate for the absence of 5 million males for two years?

OK. Quite apart from Egyptian agriculture not being the same as Persian agriculture, or supplementing civilian Roman diets in peace time not being the same as supplying Persian armies in wartime...Riaan Pretorius <riaan.pretorius@spilltech.co.za>

Egyptian agriculture may be been a little (but not much) different to Persian agriculture inasmuch as the Egyptians used irrigation - like the Babylonians, also part of the Persian Empire - whilst Persia proper relied on rain. This doesn't really matter though since Egypt was part of the Persian Empire.

If Rome is an appropriate comparable, why couldn't Rome do this for themselves? Why could Rome never field an army of over 3 million? Why was the entire military machine of the far more expansionary Roman Empire only a tenth of the size of the Herodotus number for Persia? Moreover, the Roman military was spread about the Empire such that no more than 5% of the Herodotus Persian number was ever fielded by the Romans in a single battle. Did the Persian military master some technology that failed to express itself in any other relic of their civilization?

Any comparison with Rome makes the Herodotus number for Persia look even more ridiculous.

A look at the progression of military doctrine from the earliest armies of the Fertile Crescent up to the Greeks, Macedonians and Romans shows that a reliance on numbers to intimidate one's enemy, as practised by Fertile Crescent armies, was replaced by trained and professional troops with superior arms and fighting methods, as practised by the Greeks and to a greater extent the Macedonians and Romans. Alexander's campaign in the Persian Empire in particular showed the uselessness of large numbers against quality troops. Henceforward armies would emphasise quality over quantity, and standing armies over temporary levies of mass conscripts.

[Patrick Waterson]

In the second place, these men are absent for a campaign - characteristically occupying the time span between sowing and harvest.  They are not subtracted from the economy for years at a time.

The dead ones are.

And this campaign lasted two years - 480 and 479 - whether Xerxes bargained on that or not. And some of the men surely are absent for years: how long does it take to march from India to Greece, fight a two-year campaign, and then march back? Assuming there were any Indians left to march home after Plataia, of course.

At the other end of the Empire, the Lydians were no doubt just out for a summer's walking holiday.

A valid observation.  I was thinking more of the planning side prior to the campaign, and the experience of previous campaigns.  Xerxes' 480 BC campaign of course did go drastically wrong, and with devastating losses.  This was of course not what he had his officials had planned ...

If Rome is an appropriate comparable, why couldn't Rome do this for themselves? Why could Rome never field an army of over 3 million?

Because Imperial Rome employed only paid professional soldiers and shied away from anything even hinting at mass mobilisation.  The traditional maximum for a paid professional army is 1% of the population.  For a compulsory levy, 10%.  Therein lies your answer.

Why was the entire military machine of the far more expansionary Roman Empire only a tenth of the size of the Herodotus number for Persia? Moreover, the Roman military was spread about the Empire such that no more than 5% of the Herodotus Persian number was ever fielded by the Romans in a single battle. Did the Persian military master some technology that failed to express itself in any other relic of their civilization?

The Roman Empire was actually far less expansionist than the Achaemenid Empire, adding only Agri Decumates, Dacia and (temporarily) Mesopotamia to its territories (Trajan took Mesopotamia and died; Hadrian promptly gave it up).  Dacia was abandoned during the 3rd century AD.  Agri Decumates went around the same time.

The difference was not so much technology as system: the Romans used a small, paid, well-equipped professional army.  The Achaemenids had one of these (it went around everywhere the King did) and supplemented it with a massive levy.  This had effects on the quality and equipment of some of the troops; some of the Achaemenid contingents were stone age (Ethiopians, armed with palm-leaf bows, reed arrows with stone heads and spears with heads made from antelope horn) while one had not even reached the stone age (Libyans, who had only fire-hardened wooden javelins).

As a corollary, how many wars did the Persian Empire fight from its foundation in 550BC until the Greek campaign of 480? How long did they take and much preparation was spent on them? What portion were they of that 70-year period? This would give an indication of the extent to which the Persian economy was structured for war.

Quite a few, in fact.  In 547-6 BC Cyrus conquers Lydia.  From 546 to 539 BC he is conquering Elam and Sogdia.  In 539 he takes Babylon.  Meanwhile Mazares and then Harpagus are conquering what remains of Asia Minor.  In 530 BC Cyrus dies on campaign against the Massagetae.

Cambyses succeeds Cyrus and conquers Egypt in 525 BC.  Attempts to subdue Ethiopia run foul of supply problems and the expedition against Siwa is lost in a sandstorm*, but Cambyses still managed to subdue Libya.

*Some academics maintain it was actually wiped out by the rebel Pedubast III and the sandstorm story invented.

Darius I succeeds Cambyses (after eliminating the interim incumbent) and invades India in 516 BC.  He also has to deal with revolts within the Empire, notably Babylon.  By 513 BC he is campaigning against the Scythians with 700,000 men.  Later in his reign Achaemenid armies are subduing parts of Thrace and deporting Paeonians to Asia.  In 496-494 he has to deal with the Ionian Revolt, and sending a large army intimidates the rebels into breaking up (some fighting is still necessary, especially on Cyprus).  In 492 Macedonia becomes an Achaemenid vassal.  In 490 an expedition listed by some as 600,000 strong is moved across the Aegean to conquer Eritreia and Athens.  It conquers Eritreia - temporarily.

Darius begins planning a larger expedition against Greece, to be led by himself.  A revolt in Egypt forces a change of plan.  Darius dies in 486 BC.

Then comes Xerxes, and the rest is history.

The Achaemenid Empire was on the whole pretty busy with its campaigning, and often on a large scale.  It would be fair to conclude that it was configured for war.

[Erpingham]

Unless we genuinely trying to get to 100 pages, could we perhaps try to fix on something less nebulous?  If the answer from the literalist side to every challenge is "things were different with the Persians" without providing any concrete evidence of this difference, there is no progress.

We talked of suppositions earlier.  I suggested that a basic supposition of the mainstream is that the whole campaign works better with a large army rather than a gigantic one.  Can I ask the literalists where they think the main obstacles to that supposition come within Herodotus' narrative?  What no longer works with a force (for arguments' sake) one tenth the size?  Maybe thinking at the problem from a different angle will take us to new avenues, establish fresh lines of enquiry, rather than tramping back and forth over the same field.

[Duncan Head]

The Roman Empire was actually far less expansionist than the Achaemenid Empire, adding only Agri Decumates, Dacia and (temporarily) Mesopotamia to its territories

And some other place, island off the coast of Gaul, I forget the name...

[Jim Webster]

please show me a multiyear campaign which took 50% of the men of military age away from the country?

Look at the campaigns of Thutmose III, especially Years 6-8.

fine please quote the numbers and a source. I've been chasing round digging out agricultural stuff for you, the least you can do is provide some sources

[Jim Webster]

When archaeologists start getting excited over finding granaries rather than palaces and tombs, I shall have plenty to show you.  For ther present we just have to be content with written accounts and such details as Egypt's historical ability to provide huge quantities of surplus grain during classical times.

so I take it that there aren't any
And please, I've said before, there was no surplus grain, all of it was used, I've explained it several times, so I'm not going to go spitting into the wind again

[Jim Webster]

If you leave overage men and below age boys looking after herds for knocking on for two years, you probably don't have any herds left. Your neighbours will have borrowed them.

Not if they also have contributed their young men to the Achaemenid war effort.  Xerxes' universal mass mobilisation begins to make additional sense.  The remaining male population will be older and less inclined to do anything except defend their own.

we know the Persian Empire was full of wild hill tribes who never sent men. Also on the frontiers were plenty of nomads happy to acquire more livestock. Xerxes universal mass mobilisation remains fatuous I'm afraid