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

[Erpingham]

I've just trawled through the last 20 or so pages to catch up.......lively thread 

Quite entertaining if you treat these epic debates as a chance for some serendipitous learning (I know more about ancient shipping, Roman marching practices and refugee camps than I did ) somewhat frustrating if you are seeking any answers on the main topic.  I suspect having a different approach to evidence and the testing thereof doesn't help.

[Imperial Dave]

its certainly been an education Anthony and just goes to show what a clever bunch of people we have on here

[Flaminpig0]

I've just trawled through the last 20 or so pages to catch up.......lively thread 

One that may well beat the 100 page record.

A problem is that for some of the thread participants the question is existential - if a key ancient writer such as Herodotus 'lied' then this casts doubt on other ancient writers and thus throws into question ancient history as a serious field of study. If the source can be wrong what can we rely on  in our historical studies- might we just as well be reading Michael Moorcock. There is also an issue that if we doubt ancient sources we are displaying a type of cultural arrogance that is akin to racism and much like the numerous historians and archaeologists who study these matters we have an agenda that derives from bad faith or moral failings. The latter tendency seems to be combined with what I experience as a magical world view that accepts the historical existence of 'manna from heaven' and the bible as history. One could further posit that questions around common sense and logic is equally existential and is not free from value-based analysis.

In these circumstances I am not convinced that the question posed is in any way answerable to the satisfaction of the participants.

[Prufrock]

7. The local allied Greeks are capable of supplying the army with an occasional meal without overstraining their resources and the 400 talent supper supplied by the Thasians indicates an army in the millions, not low hundreds of thousands.
The first part of the statement is true (because it's vague), the second part relies on a figure provided by Herodotus so can't be used to confirm Herodotus' figures are correct

Sorry for dipping in and out of this thread, but regarding the 400 talents, Athenaeus has 'the king of the Persians' expending 400 talents to feed 15,000 men; so that H reports 400 talents being used does not necessarily mean that it must be for millions of men.

See here:

[27.] G   But Herodotus, in his seventh book, says:- "The Greeks, who received Xerxes in hospitality, and invited him to supper, all came to the very extremity of ruin, so as to be utterly turned out of their houses; as for instance, among the Thasians, who, because of the cities which they had on the continent, received the army of Xerxes and entertained it at supper. Antipater, one of the citizens, expended four hundred talents in that single entertainment; and he placed on the tables gold and silver cups and goblets; and then the soldiers, when they departed after the supper, took them away with them. And, wherever Xerxes took two meals, dining as well as supping, that city would be utterly ruined."

And in the ninth book of his Histories, the same author tells us:- "The king provides a royal entertainment; and this is provided once every year, on the day on which the king was born. And the name of this feast is in Persian τυκτὰ, but in Greek τέλειον; and that is the only day that he has his head rubbed, and gives presents to the Persians."

But Alexander the Great, whenever he supped with any of his friends, as Ephippus the Olynthian relates in his book on the Deaths of Alexander and Hephaestion, expended each day a hundred minae, as perhaps sixty or seventy of his friends supped with him. But the king of the Persians as Ctesias and Dinon relate in the Histories of Persia, supped with fifteen thousand men, and there were expended on the supper four hundred talents; and this amounts in Italian money to twenty four hundred thousand [denarii]. And this sum when divided among fifteen thousand men is a hundred and sixty [denarii] of Italian money for each individual; so that it comes to very nearly the same as the expense of Alexander; for he expended a hundred minae, according to the account of Ephippus.

http://www.attalus.org/old/athenaeus4.html

[Justin Swanton]

7. The local allied Greeks are capable of supplying the army with an occasional meal without overstraining their resources and the 400 talent supper supplied by the Thasians indicates an army in the millions, not low hundreds of thousands.
The first part of the statement is true (because it's vague), the second part relies on a figure provided by Herodotus so can't be used to confirm Herodotus' figures are correct

Sorry for dipping in and out of this thread, but regarding the 400 talents, Athenaeus has 'the king of the Persians' expending 400 talents to feed 15,000 men; so that H reports 400 talents being used does not necessarily mean that it must be for millions of men.

See here:

[27.] G   But Herodotus, in his seventh book, says:- "The Greeks, who received Xerxes in hospitality, and invited him to supper, all came to the very extremity of ruin, so as to be utterly turned out of their houses; as for instance, among the Thasians, who, because of the cities which they had on the continent, received the army of Xerxes and entertained it at supper. Antipater, one of the citizens, expended four hundred talents in that single entertainment; and he placed on the tables gold and silver cups and goblets; and then the soldiers, when they departed after the supper, took them away with them. And, wherever Xerxes took two meals, dining as well as supping, that city would be utterly ruined."

And in the ninth book of his Histories, the same author tells us:- "The king provides a royal entertainment; and this is provided once every year, on the day on which the king was born. And the name of this feast is in Persian τυκτὰ, but in Greek τέλειον; and that is the only day that he has his head rubbed, and gives presents to the Persians."

But Alexander the Great, whenever he supped with any of his friends, as Ephippus the Olynthian relates in his book on the Deaths of Alexander and Hephaestion, expended each day a hundred minae, as perhaps sixty or seventy of his friends supped with him. But the king of the Persians as Ctesias and Dinon relate in the Histories of Persia, supped with fifteen thousand men, and there were expended on the supper four hundred talents; and this amounts in Italian money to twenty four hundred thousand [denarii]. And this sum when divided among fifteen thousand men is a hundred and sixty [denarii] of Italian money for each individual; so that it comes to very nearly the same as the expense of Alexander; for he expended a hundred minae, according to the account of Ephippus.

http://www.attalus.org/old/athenaeus4.html

The birthday supper the king gave once a year was a rather different affair from the supper the king took whilst on campaign. The birthday bash involved inviting 15 000 distinguished guests to his palace and supplying a 'royal entertainment' with lavish gifts and the last word in Persian cuisine. Expense was of no concern. The bill would have come out to about US$530 per guest which sounds about right for an a la carte menu plus entertainment and pressie.

[Erpingham]

The birthday supper the king gave once a year was a rather different affair from the supper the king took whilst on campaign.

While this is true, I think the tale does warn us to be careful with figures.  We now know the Thasians probably spent far more on entertaining Xerxes than we had assumed.

[Imperial Dave]

I've just trawled through the last 20 or so pages to catch up.......lively thread 

One that may well beat the 100 page record.

A problem is that for some of the thread participants the question is existential - if a key ancient writer such as Herodotus 'lied' then this casts doubt on other ancient writers and thus throws into question ancient history as a serious field of study. If the source can be wrong what can we rely on  in our historical studies- might we just as well be reading Michael Moorcock. There is also an issue that if we doubt ancient sources we are displaying a type of cultural arrogance that is akin to racism and much like the numerous historians and archaeologists who study these matters we have an agenda that derives from bad faith or moral failings. The latter tendency seems to be combined with what I experience as a magical world view that accepts the historical existence of 'manna from heaven' and the bible as history. One could further posit that questions around common sense and logic is equally existential and is not free from value-based analysis.

In these circumstances I am not convinced that the question posed is in any way answerable to the satisfaction of the participants.

Yes. It's a bit if a  nebulous question/answer. The trouble with authors and writers is that boss creeps in somewhere and where there is boss there is poetic licence lurking over it's shoulder. You only have to read the same story told by different newspapers today to see what I mean

[Jim Webster]

I've just trawled through the last 20 or so pages to catch up.......lively thread 

One that may well beat the 100 page record.

A problem is that for some of the thread participants the question is existential - if a key ancient writer such as Herodotus 'lied' then this casts doubt on other ancient writers and thus throws into question ancient history as a serious field of study. If the source can be wrong what can we rely on  in our historical studies- might we just as well be reading Michael Moorcock. There is also an issue that if we doubt ancient sources we are displaying a type of cultural arrogance that is akin to racism and much like the numerous historians and archaeologists who study these matters we have an agenda that derives from bad faith or moral failings. The latter tendency seems to be combined with what I experience as a magical world view that accepts the historical existence of 'manna from heaven' and the bible as history. One could further posit that questions around common sense and logic is equally existential and is not free from value-based analysis.

In these circumstances I am not convinced that the question posed is in any way answerable to the satisfaction of the participants.

Yes. It's a bit if a  nebulous question/answer. The trouble with authors and writers is that boss creeps in somewhere and where there is boss there is poetic licence lurking over it's shoulder. You only have to read the same story told by different newspapers today to see what I mean

Plutarch got a little bitter and twisted about Herodotus at the time, claiming he pandered to the Athenian dislike of Thebes
http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/plutarch/moralia/malice_of_herodotus.htm

[Patrick Waterson]

A problem is that for some of the thread participants the question is existential - if a key ancient writer such as Herodotus 'lied' then this casts doubt on other ancient writers and thus throws into question ancient history as a serious field of study.

If.

[Flaminpig0]

I've just trawled through the last 20 or so pages to catch up.......lively thread 

One that may well beat the 100 page record.

A problem is that for some of the thread participants the question is existential - if a key ancient writer such as Herodotus 'lied' then this casts doubt on other ancient writers and thus throws into question ancient history as a serious field of study. If the source can be wrong what can we rely on  in our historical studies- might we just as well be reading Michael Moorcock. There is also an issue that if we doubt ancient sources we are displaying a type of cultural arrogance that is akin to racism and much like the numerous historians and archaeologists who study these matters we have an agenda that derives from bad faith or moral failings. The latter tendency seems to be combined with what I experience as a magical world view that accepts the historical existence of 'manna from heaven' and the bible as history. One could further posit that questions around common sense and logic is equally existential and is not free from value-based analysis.

In these circumstances I am not convinced that the question posed is in any way answerable to the satisfaction of the participants.

Yes. It's a bit if a  nebulous question/answer. The trouble with authors and writers is that boss creeps in somewhere and where there is boss there is poetic licence lurking over it's shoulder. You only have to read the same story told by different newspapers today to see what I mean

Plutarch got a little bitter and twisted about Herodotus at the time, claiming he pandered to the Athenian dislike of Thebes
http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/plutarch/moralia/malice_of_herodotus.htm

I particular like:

First then, whoever in relating a story shall use the odious terms when gentler expressions might do as well, is it not to be esteemed impartial, but an enjoyer of his own fancy, in putting the worst construction on things; as if any one, instead of saying Nicias is too superstitious, should call him fanatic, or should accuse Cleon of presumption and madness rather than of inconsiderateness in speech.

Is Herodotus's work written to be performed in public as much as it is to be pored over in a library is he more Frankie Boyle than David Starkey?

[Jim Webster]

Is Herodotus's work written to be performed in public as much as it is to be pored over in a library is he more Frankie Boyle than David Starkey?

It's a good point. There is some discussion as to when people stopped reading aloud and started reading silently. We know people like Alexander the Great could and did do it, but it appears it was by no means the norm. Reading was a social activity. The cost of owning the works of Herodotus was high, so if you had a set it was likely you'd have them read aloud to you and your guests

This actually makes a difference to the way things are written. The King James Bible was meant to be read aloud, and thus has a far higher use of synonyms than later translations. Also it is far more poetic

So I suspect more people would have heard Herodotus read than would have read him. Also I suspect certain passages would have become favorites whilst other bits were less often aired.

[Erpingham]

This brief essay is not unsympathetic to Herodotus but does point out that among his ancient critics were Thucydides, Aristotle and Plutarch.  Cicero referred admiringly of Herodotus as the Father of History but said, in the same sentence, his work contained many legends.  Placing Herodotus on an infallible pedestal seems inappropriate given his ancient reputation and does him a disservice.  He was a ground breaker, a man of expansive interests  and no mean writer.  He doesn't need to be a demi-god.

[Patrick Waterson]

I don't want to enter into tit-for-tat but I assume you've abandoned the cautious, reasoned approach for deliberate provocation to try to refocus our minds, so here goes.

Isn't that a bit slanted?

1.  It can be assumed the Empire had a population large enough to spare 5 million males of military age and still keep going.
Not impossible but we lack evidence that this happened or that this military capacity could be deployed in one place.

We have 'evidence' - our very own academics' estimates for the Achamenid Empire at this period, which range from 17 to 55 million.  As for 'deploying this military capacity in one place', Artaxerxes II did so at Cunaxa and Darius III at Gaugamela.  There is no doubt that it could be done.

2. The army can march overland without having to form impossibly long columns a few men wide. Examples exist of Persian armies moving cross-country in this fashion.
The "columns a few wide" are a straw man argument.  Cross country movement is assumed by all parties as there are no proper roads.  Behaviour of later Persian armies in open plains has disputable relevance

Cross country movement and lack of proper roads have been late conclusions for some.  Columns a few men wide are a Maurice argument.

3. The Hellespont can be crossed over a bridge of ships by several million men in the timespan given by Herodotus.
Probably true, though has no bearing on numbers crossing

Actually it does: if a bridge is of a certain width/capacity it bears some relationship to the expected traffic.

4. Before Thermopylae the overland route does not have any bottlenecks that cannot be traversed by a broad column.
This seems to be disputed

But only by the disputatious.

5. The navy can be assumed to be large enough (800 smallish vessels) to supply an army this size. There are sufficient beaches and offloading can be done quickly enough to deposit several thousand tons of grain each day.
You can only make this statement by ignoring much of what has been written above.  It is doubtful that sufficient supplies could be unloaded over beaches with the regularity and quantity given.  We have no independent evidence of the size of the fleet and 800 ships is an estimate based on army size, not an independent confirmation of it

And what would sir consider to be 'independent evidence'?  Remember we are working from essentially a single source, which means our best bet for getting somewhere is to check it for internal consistency.  Wanting 'independent evidence' is a cop-out.

6. The campsites need not be impossibly large and the local water supply is adequate for the needs of 5 million men.
This statement can only really be made by ignoring arguments made.  The water issue has only been tackled by stating Maurice made a major miscalculation of the rate of flow in Asia Minor, so therefore all issues modern armies on the march had with watering horses can be dismissed

If their calculation accuracy is anything like Maurice's, we had better not just dismiss them but discard them altogether.  Herodotus notes which rivers (and lakes) supplied the army effectively and which ran dry.

7. The local allied Greeks are capable of supplying the army with an occasional meal without overstraining their resources and the 400 talent supper supplied by the Thasians indicates an army in the millions, not low hundreds of thousands.
The first part of the statement is true (because it's vague), the second part relies on a figure provided by Herodotus so can't be used to confirm Herodotus' figures are correct

Not so - it relies on contemporary Greek standards of living.  400 talents could purchase a day's food for a few million people whether or not we ever heard of Herodotus.

8. Maurice as an argument of authority is not conclusive. He has been proven seriously inaccurate in several crucial estimates.
Maurice is one of many modern estimates of the size of the army which dispute Herodotus' figures.  He seems to have taken on a prominence because he approached the march as a military exercise as opposed to a papers and pencil (or calculator) one.  Most of the areas where he raised issues have not been satisfactorially bottomed even if he may not be correct in all details.

He gets the water supply spectacularly wrong.  He gets Achaemenid marching practice spectacularly wrong.  How much further do we need to go with him?

9. Herodotus is too systematic in affirming or implying an army in the millions rather than low hundreds of thousands. If he is wrong then he is guilty of systematic fabrication, not just vague exaggeration. This makes him completely unreliable as a source, despite the fact he generally has a good reputation among contemporary historians.
He seems to have had a worse reputation among Ancient historians than modern ones.  He does seem to have thought about his numbers but seems to have been the victim either of propaganda or a "barbarian horde" trope, which in this setting would be mutually reinforcing

No, he undertook to get at and provide the facts about the war.

"This is the display of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, so that things done by man not be forgotten in time, and that great and marvelous deeds, some displayed by the Hellenes, some by the barbarians, not lose their glory, including among others what was the cause of their waging war on each other."  - Herodotus I.1

His work indicates that he interviewed many people with a leading role in the war, and he shows throughout a wish to get facts straight or, if they are ambiguous, give the available versions and let the reader decide.  This is not the behaviour of a man swayed by 'tropes', however popular .

[Jim Webster]

I don't want to enter into tit-for-tat but I assume you've abandoned the cautious, reasoned approach for deliberate provocation to try to refocus our minds, so here goes.

Isn't that a bit slanted?

1.  It can be assumed the Empire had a population large enough to spare 5 million males of military age and still keep going.
Not impossible but we lack evidence that this happened or that this military capacity could be deployed in one place.

We have 'evidence' - our very own academics' estimates for the Achamenid Empire at this period, which range from 17 to 55 million.  As for 'deploying this military capacity in one place', Artaxerxes II did so at Cunaxa and Darius III at Gaugamela.  There is no doubt that it could be done.

none of the accounts of these two actions talk about 6 million
Not only that but it is a lot easier to do things in the heart of the Empire than it is to project power into a rocky, grain deficient wasteland beyond the empire.

[Jim Webster]

8. Maurice as an argument of authority is not conclusive. He has been proven seriously inaccurate in several crucial estimates.
Maurice is one of many modern estimates of the size of the army which dispute Herodotus' figures.  He seems to have taken on a prominence because he approached the march as a military exercise as opposed to a papers and pencil (or calculator) one.  Most of the areas where he raised issues have not been satisfactorially bottomed even if he may not be correct in all details.

He gets the water supply spectacularly wrong.  He gets Achaemenid marching practice spectacularly wrong.  How much further do we need to go with him?

I await with interest your evidence for the Achaemenid marching practice that proves Maurice wrong, spectacularly or otherwise.