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

[Patrick Waterson]

Herodutus' number pushes me to the wrong end of the credulity continuum, because it is such an unprecedented combination of density and scale.

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

[Patrick Waterson]

The conventional view is that technology generally makes individuals more productive  and thus modern societies have a large number of individuals not directly employed in producing food stuffs etc.

This is something of a six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other consideration given that many of those not involved in producing foodstuffs are usually involved in manufacture, infrastructure and other exempted occupations.

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

18th century columns were not deep as you convey them.

And how deep did I convey them?  I do not incidentally recall even mentioning the 18th century.

The point was that the wider deployments of the chemical propellant era were because the kind of depth favoured in the Biblical and (sometimes) classical period was no longer viable.  (It was more or less viable up to the 1640s after which the tercio fell out of fashion.)  Even Napoleonic 'columns', which only once (at Waterloo, under D'Erlon) were 'a series of parallel lines with space between for linear deployment', fell victim to superior firepower.

[Justin Swanton]

Herodutus' number pushes me to the wrong end of the credulity continuum, because it is such an unprecedented combination of density and scale.

For scale we have the combined armies of the Chinese Warring States which together were about double the size of Xerxes' host. Here is the size of the Persian Empire compared to China of that period. What is interesting is the fact there seems to have been a cross-cultural pollination in military thinking. Chariot design for example appears quite similar between the Fertile Crescent, India and China.



I suppose one could always discount the Chinese sources as wild exaggerations....

[Erpingham]

I thought we said we were calling it a day on this?  I'll be brief, because a lot is repetition.

Well, assuming Diodorus has the correct figures, these armies deploy 5-10% of Xerxes army.

And they appear to involve only one mobilisation area, Syria-Phoenicia, rather than the six areas I have identified within the Empire.  Xerxes used all six.  Each area appears to supply 300,000 men when called upon, or some portion thereof (the 373 BC invasion of Egypt used 200,000 while the 343 BC invasion appears to have used the full 300,000).  We may note that in Xenophon's Anabasis Cyrus the Younger breaks with tradition and brings only the best 100,000 from Asia Minor - he is met by 900,000 of the 1,200,000 Artaxerxes pulled together from four of the six areas.

But now you are relying on numbers which have been described above as potentially tainted by the same systematic bias.  No wonder we go in circles.

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

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 Achaemnid campaign.  Is it really so surprising that it was never repeated?

This works without recourse to huge numbers

Actually addressing just citizen numbers is much better than trying to count in slaves. Slaves will tend to distort age groups and are not usually available for military service (they are in some cultures but not usually the ones we tend to be interested in).  Besides, slaves are replaceable after a successful camapign whereas military manpower is more of a constant (occasional major disasters aside).

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.
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.  They perform roles in society that would otherwise be performed by other free people in non-slave societies. 

I think the question is not whether ancient armies could move through passes or on coast roads but whether 4.5 million men could do this.  We lack a precedent.  When armies approaching this size were deployed in later history, they were spread over much larger fronts. 

The 'later history' is about 2,500 years later and the greater frontages a function of ranged breech-loading firepower more than anything else. 

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.

OK, that's it for me now on this as I'll be away for a few days.

[Dangun]

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.

For scale we have the combined armies of the Chinese Warring States which together were about double the size of Xerxes' host.

Agreed.
Now if we can just find an instant where they were all hanging about in the same valley/campsite/defile/bridge, we would have a precedent.

[Erpingham]

Herodutus' number pushes me to the wrong end of the credulity continuum, because it is such an unprecedented combination of density and scale.

For scale we have the combined armies of the Chinese Warring States which together were about double the size of Xerxes' host.

I suppose one could always discount the Chinese sources as wild exaggerations....

Well, when we discussed this earlier, the only figures available were unsourced ones from Wikipedia, so its hard to judge.  But I said at the time the figures looked suspiciously rounded.  "How many infantry did they have?" "A million".  What about them "Same".  The figures are also considerably higher than periods in China we do have figures for as far as I can tell.

You could try the Mauryan Empire.  50-60 Million population so comparable to Persia.  Wikipedia has

According to Megasthenes, the empire wielded a military of 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, 8,000 chariots and 9,000 war elephants besides followers and attendants.


I suspect we are in "hordes of barbarians" territory again with regard to the infantry, but it is another Empire from our era of interest.

[Mark G]

We have discussed that out of period issue of columns in the 18th and early 19th century before Patrick.

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.

As with your persistent repetition of the unproven 10% man power truth, just stop .

[Justin Swanton]

Herodutus' number pushes me to the wrong end of the credulity continuum, because it is such an unprecedented combination of density and scale.

For scale we have the combined armies of the Chinese Warring States which together were about double the size of Xerxes' host.

I suppose one could always discount the Chinese sources as wild exaggerations....

Well, when we discussed this earlier, the only figures available were unsourced ones from Wikipedia, so its hard to judge.  But I said at the time the figures looked suspiciously rounded.  "How many infantry did they have?" "A million".  What about them "Same".  The figures are also considerably higher than periods in China we do have figures for as far as I can tell.

You could try the Mauryan Empire.  50-60 Million population so comparable to Persia.  Wikipedia has

According to Megasthenes, the empire wielded a military of 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, 8,000 chariots and 9,000 war elephants besides followers and attendants.


I suspect we are in "hordes of barbarians" territory again with regard to the infantry, but it is another Empire from our era of interest.

I realise we need to look at the Chinese sources, ideally in original Mandarin or whatever the language is. It's just a question of time and energy, both of which I lack.

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).

[Erpingham]

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

I'm actually trying hard to be open minded about what the military potential of an ancient empire, rather than an industrial age modern state might be.  What are the sorts of bounds we should be looking at? It looks like our sources run between 1-4%, with larger empires at the lower end (although this could be co-incidence).  This would mean for Persian 500,000 to 2 million, probably around 1 million.  That's higher than a lot of estimates.  How much of a force they could place in one place at one time is another matter.  The Northern Greece theatre of operations would be particularly difficult for them and would restrict what they could deploy.  But, despite the title of the thread, has been the thing we have been arguing about.  If we could shake off the shackles of Herodotus' numbers, there is an interesting campaign to be discussed, as are many of the other campaigns.  We could even make an attempt to understand the nature of the Persian military - was it a swarming horde driven by whips or something much more organised based on social obligation.  If we were to discuss that, ditching the numbers debate, separately, we may find an interested audience.

[Justin Swanton]

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

I'm actually trying hard to be open minded about what the military potential of an ancient empire, rather than an industrial age modern state might be.  What are the sorts of bounds we should be looking at? It looks like our sources run between 1-4%, with larger empires at the lower end (although this could be co-incidence).  This would mean for Persian 500,000 to 2 million, probably around 1 million.  That's higher than a lot of estimates.  How much of a force they could place in one place at one time is another matter.  The Northern Greece theatre of operations would be particularly difficult for them and would restrict what they could deploy.  But, despite the title of the thread, has been the thing we have been arguing about.  If we could shake off the shackles of Herodotus' numbers, there is an interesting campaign to be discussed, as are many of the other campaigns.  We could even make an attempt to understand the nature of the Persian military - was it a swarming horde driven by whips or something much more organised based on social obligation.  If we were to discuss that, ditching the numbers debate, separately, we may find an interested audience.

Herodotus' numbers are what make the thread fun. Imagine we were all politely discussing the logistics systems of ancient empires and pretty much agreeing with each other. 

BTW I'm reminded of an account of a meeting of the Inklings (The Oxford discussion group with C S Lewis, J R R Tolkien, etc.). When a newcomer heard them at one session for the first time, he thought they were going to attack one another.

[Flaminpig0]

The conventional view is that technology generally makes individuals more productive  and thus modern societies have a large number of individuals not directly employed in producing food stuffs etc.

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?

[RichT]

Arguing over the numbers is (and has proved to be) a sterile business. The trouble with talking about the real nature of the army (eg whip-driven horde v warrior caste) is that it will be hard to do so without straying into numbers.

I think some of the stuff around where numbers come from and how we know can be more interesting than the numbers themselves - thinking of the type of things talked about by Sean Manning here.

Incidentally has anyone read the Christopher Tuplin article he links to? It's one of those upside down scans which I can't be bothered to right...

[Duncan Head]

Incidentally has anyone read the Christopher Tuplin article he links to? It's one of those upside down scans which I can't be bothered to right...

Here's a right-way-up version.

[RichT]

Here's a right-way-up version.

Excellent - thank you!