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

[Patrick Waterson]

I have directed you to multiple respected books on the subject which you have continued to ignore, which would be fine if you just stopped repeating the thoroughly discredited notion that columns in this era were in anyway comparable to ancient dense formations.

And where exactly do I do that, pray?  I think you are imagining this.

[Patrick Waterson]

But now you are relying on numbers which have been described above as potentially tainted by the same systematic bias.

This assumes the existence of a systemic bias.  Is there any actual evidence for one?

The issue isn't that the Achaemenids could organise or that they had big armies.  Your belief in Herodotus' figures demands a level of organisation above all pre-modern armies. 

Is there a problem with this?

Yes - that's what the whole debate is about

If we look at the 'level of organisation' of 'all pre-modern armies', it is not actually very impressive once the Romans drop out of the picture, so this is not a particularly high bar to worry about.

The sticking-point many people seem to have about Xerxes' army is its uniqueness (well, almost uniqueness).  It was the largest army the Achaemenids ever fielded.  It also suffered the most catastrophic consequences of any Achaemenid campaign.  Is it really so surprising that it was never repeated?

This works without recourse to huge numbers

And even better with.  The real question is why we have this compulsion to try and savage large numbers.

I partly agree here, because we actually have the military manpower figures and we are estimating populations out from them.  However, as we have been dealing with population percentages previously for comparison, it is useful to make a direct comparison, lest we make a slip found in some places on the internet that the percentage citizens mustered is equal to the percentage of population mustered.

True; citizen populations are available from census figures whereas total populations involve a lot of guesswork.

It is utterly irrelevant whether slaves are available for military service or that they could be replaced. They are people and therefore part of the population.

Only by our ethical standards.  Slaves were the programmable ovens, washing machines and domestic robots of their day.  You could get a new one at market.  They were, sad to say, accessories rather than population.

Actually no.  You are confusing tactical frontage with strategic frontage.  Armies advanced over a wide front for various reasons but one of them was logistic - how many men could effectively use one axis of advance for movement and supply.  Which is directly relevant here.  It's part of the thinking that real staff officers rather than armchair pundits do.

I would suggest considering the logistical implications of a 'broad front' as opposed to 'single thrust' advance - it was very relevant in late 1944, as supplying multiple lines of advance proved to be a much greater logistical strain than supplying one.  Multiple axes of advance increase rather than diminish supply problems unless one is living off the land.  This is why, for example, Shapur's Sassanid army as described by Ammianus advances in a single 'swarm' on a wide tactical frontage rather than invading by several separate routes.

Notice however that the sources for this period all wildly exaggerate ( Alert: irony warning  ) at about the same numbers: 600 000 -1 million, around that mark. This does suggest that huge armies were the norm at that time (or the writers of the sources all had the same inflated imagination).

Fair point.  It does seem to support the idea of a consistent topos

A most remarkable one as it appears to be identical in Greek and Chinese sources.

[Patrick Waterson]

Again, it is the 'unprecedented' aspect which seems to be the sticking-point.  If I provide a precedent, will that make credibility easier?

In 73 pages, a precedent of equal density and scale hasn't come up yet.
So best of luck. But undeniable, it would help.

It would be a long passage to quote, but check out Diodorus II chapters 16-19 inclusive.  Interestingly enough, this also involves getting a large army across a bridge.

[Patrick Waterson]

The point about a low-technology army is that in classical societies (Greco-Roman), and in the preceding period, once you have done the important agricultural things during the spring, your manpower, or at least the bulk of it, is available for campaigning until harvest time.  Furthermore, low-tech societies tend to acquire slave manpower (or person power) for the less desirable jobs and this frees up more men for seasonal military activity.

And military activity by low-tech societies does tend to be seasonal, not the year-round campaigning of higher technology societies.  This is partly to do with preserving manpower, as campaigning in winter tends to inflict serious discomfort and attrition, and partly being tied to the cycles of agriculture, which simply must be sustained unless one has another source of supply.

Would that apply to the Persians do you think?

Yes, in both respects.  Achaemenid campaigning does appear to have been seasonal, and Xerxes' 480 BC campaign, although the King of Kings talked about subduing all Europe, was designed simply to conquer Greece, effectively by overawing it.

On the subject of campaign seasonality, it may be worth noting that temperate zone powers seem to prefer to get the harvest in first and then go campaigning, whereas Mediterranean powers seemed to go campaigning early in the year and then return for the harvest.

[Flaminpig0]

And even better with.  The real question is why we have this compulsion to try and savage large numbers.

Cultural Marxism?

The polite response  would be I suspect it is due to the realisation that there is a natural human tendency to exaggerate when attempting to make a point plus the understanding that many of the texts were written in more credulous times. Then there is the introduction of sociology and economics into history which  for many people, not you and Justin, undermines the plausibility of these huge armies- what impact on Persian society would the strain of fielding such a force  have?  This has been mentioned on this thread  at some length but has got a little bit buried under the width of  marching columns etc. Then there is a sort of post-modernist idea that the text is unreliable as the narrator cant be separated from their culture/weltanschauung as well as the idea that ancient historians do not operate in the same way as a modern historian. Their work isn't peer reviewed nor do they have the benefit of a couple of thousand years of philosophical discourse on ontology and epistemology, they are also as much public entertainers, philosophers, social commentators, religious propagandists or political activists as 'pure' historians. Michael Grants book 'Greek and Roman Historians'  covers the latter point at some length. Then there is Occam's Razor, a huge number of suppositions have been created  to defend Herodotus's numbers and for me it is much more likely that Herodotus for reasons unknown was in error. Oh, and Justin that doesn't mean his work is completely valueless or that he was a 'member of some type of Goebbels type propaganda machine'.

However, for me the real question would be why you have a 'compulsion' to believe in these large numbers? Genuine question- give us a clue!

[Mark G]

re read your personal messages Patrick.

we talked about this in 2013. 

plenty of time to have taken action if you actually were interested in learning something, instead of simply repeating the comfortable falsehoods you seem to prefer

[Patrick Waterson]

And even better with.  The real question is why we have this compulsion to try and savage large numbers.

Cultural Marxism?

Then there is a sort of post-modernist idea that the text is unreliable as the narrator cant be separated from their culture/weltanschauung as well as the idea that ancient historians do not operate in the same way as a modern historian. Their work isn't peer reviewed

Oh, but it is, albeit perforce post-publication.  Read what classical historians have to say about classical historians.   And inseperability from cultures works both ways - we do not understand theirs, as is evidenced by this curious idea that they suffered from endemic compulsive exaggeration.  Our analysts get into something of a flat spin when, having accused Herodotus et. al. of exaggerating the size of barbarian armies in order to pander to Greek vanity, they then begin accusing them of exaggerating the size of the Greek army at Plataea.

Funny thing about peer review.  Michael Crichton, one of the more intelligent and perceptive novelists, was a great fan around 2004 when he was writing State of Fear.  By 2017 he had become thoroughly disillusioned with it, and in Next he writes: "Many studies have shown that peer review does not improve the quality of scientific papers. Scientists themselves know it doesn't work."  Crichton cites the case of Hwang Woo Suk and points out that "All of Hwang's papers in Science were peer-reviewed. If we ever needed evidence that peer review is an empty ritual, this episode provides it."

While the majority of academia retains faith in the concept of peer review, principally on the basis that it is 'better than no quality control whatsoever', it may not live up to expectations.

nor do they have the benefit of a couple of thousand years of philosophical discourse on ontology and epistemology

Neither, it seems, do we.  All we have ended up with is a bundle of (inaccurate and seemingly arbitrary) prejudices about the way the ancient world worked.

they are also as much public entertainers, philosophers, social commentators, religious propagandists or political activists as 'pure' historians.

The more things change, the more they remain the same ...

Michael Grants book 'Greek and Roman Historians'  covers the latter point at some length. Then there is Occam's Razor, a huge number of suppositions have been created  to defend Herodotus's numbers and for me it is much more likely that Herodotus for reasons unknown was in error.

Actually it is the other way around: a huge number of suppositions have been created in order to attack Herodotus' numbers; the simplest course is just to stay with them.

However, for me the real question would be why you have a 'compulsion' to believe in these large numbers? Genuine question- give us a clue!

I have no 'compulsion' to 'believe' any large numbers; the picture has to include population, supply, organisation and the military tradition and system of the power involved.  (You might have observed that I do not accept, for example, a certain chronicler's 2.4 million English at Hastings.)  The Achaemenid Empire was the last of the Biblical armies.  These were characterised by very large numbers (in the sources; modern estimates try to degrade them down to a fraction of that for no apparent reason), extensive logistical arrangements and deep formations.

And if one ceases to be hypnotised by scholars' a priori insistence that older armies must be smaller, one can see that all the elements are there. (Unintentional wargaming pun.)  Store cities, chariot cities - the Biblical powers had a degree of organisation that even today western powers (or for that matter anyone) only manages to attain occasionally in wartime.  (The USSR had, for example, 'academic cities' and 'tankograd' showing similar concentration of purpose but without the expertise.)

[Patrick Waterson]

re read your personal messages Patrick.

we talked about this in 2013. 

plenty of time to have taken action if you actually were interested in learning something, instead of simply repeating the comfortable falsehoods you seem to prefer

Mark, if you read those books the same way you read my posts then I am not surprised at your conclusions.  If you seriously want to discuss Napoleonic formations I suggest we do it off-forum.

[Justin Swanton]

And even better with.  The real question is why we have this compulsion to try and savage large numbers.

Cultural Marxism?

The polite response  would be I suspect it is due to the realisation that there is a natural human tendency to exaggerate when attempting to make a point plus the understanding that many of the texts were written in more credulous times. Then there is the introduction of sociology and economics into history which  for many people, not you and Justin, undermines the plausibility of these huge armies- what impact on Persian society would the strain of fielding such a force  have?  This has been mentioned on this thread  at some length but has got a little bit buried under the width of  marching columns etc. Then there is a sort of post-modernist idea that the text is unreliable as the narrator cant be separated from their culture/weltanschauung as well as the idea that ancient historians do not operate in the same way as a modern historian. Their work isn't peer reviewed nor do they have the benefit of a couple of thousand years of philosophical discourse on ontology and epistemology, they are also as much public entertainers, philosophers, social commentators, religious propagandists or political activists as 'pure' historians. Michael Grants book 'Greek and Roman Historians'  covers the latter point at some length. Then there is Occam's Razor, a huge number of suppositions have been created  to defend Herodotus's numbers and for me it is much more likely that Herodotus for reasons unknown was in error. Oh, and Justin that doesn't mean his work is completely valueless or that he was a 'member of some type of Goebbels type propaganda machine'.

However, for me the real question would be why you have a 'compulsion' to believe in these large numbers? Genuine question- give us a clue!

Let me give several clues:

The polite response  would be I suspect it is due to the realisation that there is a natural human tendency to exaggerate when attempting to make a point plus the understanding that many of the texts were written in more credulous times

Exaggerating to an extent is understandable, but making an army ten or twenty times larger than its actual size isn't exaggeration - it's pure fabrication. And these weren't actually credulous times as the contemporary critics of Herodotus show: if they could catch him out on a point of fact they did so. Human beings two thousand years ago weren't naive fools.

Then there is the introduction of sociology and economics into history which  for many people, not you and Justin, undermines the plausibility of these huge armies- what impact on Persian society would the strain of fielding such a force  have?

The thread spent some time looking at the ability of the Persian empire to field a force of several million men and grow and store enough food to feed that force. Nowhere can I see any compelling reason for it being unable to do so. The population was large enough. Agriculture, using the methods of that time (which were compared with Roman agricultural production for which we have figures) was capable enough, and transport, especially waterborne transport, was developed enough.

Then there is a sort of post-modernist idea that the text is unreliable as the narrator cant be separated from their culture/weltanschauung as well as the idea that ancient historians do not operate in the same way as a modern historian

Herodotus does evince the same regard for truth a contemporary historian would have, and this has nothing to do with culture/weltanschauung. If you say you want to give an objective fact-driven account and then give what adds up to an objective fact-driven account, you can be credited with being objective and fact-driven, whether you live in 450 BC or 2018 AD.

Their work isn't peer reviewed nor do they have the benefit of a couple of thousand years of philosophical discourse on ontology and epistemology, they are also as much public entertainers, philosophers, social commentators, religious propagandists or political activists as 'pure' historians.

His book was certainly peer-reviewed - see my first comment. If Herodotus had made up his figures for the Persian army sure as eggs contemporary or near-contemporary writers would have jumped on it as they jumped on other perceived errors in his work. Again, the BC folks weren't naive fools. A writer like Herodotus was perfectly capable of distinguishing between public entertainment (limited in this case to good literary style), philosophy (which didn't yet exist in pre-Socratic Greece), social commentary (also non-existent at that time), religious propaganda (see below) and political activism (nothing shows that Herodotus was a political activist: he had no political cause to be active about).

On the subject of religious propaganda, I very much suspect that the principal reason contemporary academics are so ready to discredit someone like Herodotus is because he incorporates religion into his account - or more accurately, natural events like the dolphin episode which people assigned to religious causes. He is not a sensible, intelligent atheist who believes only in what the scientific method can demonstrate as being true. The implication here is that anyone who has a religious belief automatically drops several notches in credibility. Without getting into what would be a contentious discussion that is off-topic, here is a list of prominent scientists who were also religious men. Bottom line: on can believe in a divinity and have perfect intellectual integrity.

Then there is Occam's Razor, a huge number of suppositions have been created  to defend Herodotus's numbers and for me it is much more likely that Herodotus for reasons unknown was in error.

Occam's Razor works on the explanation with the fewest assumptions probably being the true one. If we accept that Xerxes did actually send 5 million men to Greece how many assumptions are made? The only one I know of is this:

The army would have to march wide cross-country as it was too large to stick to tracks.

Read Asklepiodotus, Aelian and Arrian on march formations. Marching cross-country isn't an assumption; it was a military science. An army could form multiple columns, squares, half squares, lines, oblique lines, crescents and more besides. Marching could be in open or intermediate formation. There were various ways of accompanying the baggage of which only one was to form a column with it. Certainly the Macedonian and Seleucid armies - who didn't bother preparing a cleared avenue to march along - had no problem with cross-country travel.

Nothing else is AFAIK an assumption. We have a rough idea of the Persian Empire's population. We know that growing the necessary food and shipping it to Greece was not beyond the Empire's capabilities. We know that it is possible to store grain for several years, at least in a dry climate like Egypt's. We know there were no real chokepoints before Thermopylae that would force the army to advance on a narrow front a few men wide. And so on. Nothing has been assumed.

If one posits a much smaller Persian army then one immediately has to make the assumption that Herodotus was lying, pure and simple - not only about the size of the army, but also about the bridge of boats (unnecessary) the 400 talent dinner, the size of the Persian encampment in Thessalay, and so on. As a historian Herodotus is finished. One then has to go on from there and assume that all the primary sources were lying when they gave huge numbers for Persian armies. One has to assume that the Chinese sources likewise lied when they gave huge numbers for Warring States armies, and that the numbers for the army of the Mauryan Empire was also a lie. Since these are spectacular lies, one has to assume that ancient sources are utterly untrustworthy. If one wants to do history one has to stick to archaeology and numismatology. Good luck with that.

[Flaminpig0]

I very much suspect that the principal reason contemporary academics are so ready to discredit someone like Herodotus is because he incorporates religion into his account - or more accurately, natural events like the dolphin episode which people assigned to religious causes. He is not a sensible, intelligent atheist who believes only in what the scientific method can demonstrate as being true. The implication here is that anyone who has a religious belief automatically drops several notches in credibility. Without getting into what would be a contentious discussion that is off-topic, here is a list of prominent scientists who were also religious men. Bottom line: on can believe in a divinity and have perfect intellectual integrity.

Everything in Justin's and Patrick's response has been covered at length in the thread and I see no reason not to refer them back to previous comments, I will comment on the religious straw man argument that has been raised. No one has said that a belief  in a divinity precludes intellectual integrity perfect or otherwise, I would however question anyone who had a literalist interpretation of the bible or which ever holy text they choose to believe in. It is also naive to believe that scientists always display perfect intellectual integrity anymore than long dead historians.

[Justin Swanton]

I would however question anyone who had a literalist interpretation of the bible or which ever holy text they choose to believe in. It is also naive to believe that scientists always display perfect intellectual integrity anymore than long dead historians.

Personally I have a nuanced approach to the Bible - the creation of the universe in seven days is clearly poetry since there is evening and morning on the days before the sun is created. And so on. Vast topic.

Re scientists I totally agree.

Happy to leave it at that. 

[Dangun]

The real question is why we have this compulsion to try and savage large numbers.

This must be rhetorical, because the answer is obvious: basic statistics / scientific method.
Outliers must be critically examined, because they are either errors or feed back to modify theories.

On what basis would we savage normal?

We tried this earlier in the thread. But I think we can walk backwards from consensus to reveal where we all sit on the credulity continuum. I am guessing that we'll get consensus that King Cuang of Lan Na's 117million man army or Constantine's aerial crucifix over Malvin Bridge is probably bogus. Herodotus' number is not as obviously bogus as that, but how much less obviously bogus? Where is it between 4mn Persians and 177mn Thais that you would begin to doubt?

[Patrick Waterson]

But I think we can walk backwards from consensus to reveal where we all sit on the credulity continuum. I am guessing that we'll get consensus that King Cuang of Lan Na's 117million man army or Constantine's aerial crucifix over Malvin Bridge is probably bogus.

What is interesting is to examine the reasons for such conclusions.  Leaving aside in hoc signo vinces for now (albeit remmbering that the 'trinity sign' triple sun at Barnet has lately acquired a scientific explanation), Cuang*'s army is a non-starter on account of being well above the conceivable population for the whole of Indochina at that time.  The kingdom itself had by popular designation only a million rice fields, so unless they were very big rice fields one can see something of a supply problem.

*Is this incidentally the individual whose army is said to have had a celebration on the Plain of Jars?

So yes, 117 million men for that particular army - a force present-day communist China might envy - looks a bit wrong.  Xerxes' army, however, looks quite possible on the basis of population estimates for the Achaemenid Empire.  The range I have seen is 17 million to 55 million, and even at the lower end (which looks a bit parsimonious) it could have been done.

Thee real question seems to be whether we think it could have been organised.

On what basis would we savage normal?

On the basis that it does not correspond to our sense of normality.

Outliers must be critically examined, because they are either errors or feed back to modify theories.

This is indeed true, although I would say 'rationally and dispassionately examined' as 'critically examined' implies malice prepense.  We might however be aware that it is often the outliers which contain vital information: chimpanzees share 96% (or as much as 98.8% depending upon whiom you read) of our DNA so the differences are statistically insignificant and maybe should be critically examined in order to eliminate the anomalies and make the overall correspondence wholly consistent ...

[John GL]

[
What is interesting is to examine the reasons for such conclusions.  Leaving aside in hoc signo vinces for now (albeit remembering that the 'trinity sign' triple sun at Barnet has lately acquired a scientific explanation),

The "triple sun" appeared at Mortimer's Cross, ten years earlier than Barnet.  Not a lot of sun at Barnet, which was fought on a foggy April morning.

[Dangun]

Leaving aside in hoc signo vinces for now

Agreed, its not an appealing topic.

But Eusebius is an interesting source on this event, not because of the religious content, but because he wrote a history of this event twice - once in the Ecclesiastical History and once in the Life of Constantine.

And whenever we get two histories the comparison is revealing. Not surprisingly, it is the later of Eusebius two versions, the one with more hagiographical intent, that has much more of the silly unbelievable stuff in it. (As it happens there are also inconsistencies with Lactanious and Zosimos.)

We don't have a parallel history to Herodotus on most of the topics he covered. But if we did, we can say with near certainty that it would show all sorts of errors, ommissions, exaggerations etc. etc. because everytime we are lucky enough to get parallel literary sources that's what happens.

I am not suggesting for a minute that we throw something out just because it contains errors. If we do that we have nothing.

So yes, 117 million men for that particular army - a force present-day communist China might envy - looks a bit wrong.  Xerxes' army, however, looks quite possible on the basis of population estimates for the Achaemenid Empire.

I won't rehash the thread, but clearly there is no consensus on this point, at least not in this forum.

But if 117 million Thais is too many, how many would have been too many Persians? Would you have believed double - 7 million? What about 14 million? This question is not meant to be parody. But it might be interesting to put a number on what would be the maximum number at which we would get unanimity.