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

[Jim Webster]

For me, it's the big picture. Given what I know about grazing, and grain production and storage, given what I've read about agriculture in the area and in the period, given what I've read about Persian armies at the time, the internal politics of the Empire, the fact that this can only  be done using techniques nobody used before or since.

Then I suspect your reading is seriously flawed in this respect: Greek sources give a very different picture. 

pretty well all sources for Persia ARE Greek sources

[Jim Webster]

The internal politics of the Empire need to be looked at reign-by-reign rather than telescoped; the latter approach is misleading and ascribes to the early Empire the difficulties of the later Empire.

I did look at the internal politics of the Empire. In fact in the first post in which I discussed them I only discussed the Emperors up to Xerxes. So I can hardly be accused to ascribing to the early Empire the difficulties of the later Empire
Three out of the first five Emperors were murdered

[Jim Webster]

Everything conspires against Xerxes and his horde

Replace 'everything' by 'everyone' and you get a more accurate picture.

I am not illiterate, I picked my words with care. I feel that using the word 'everything' gives the most accurate picture of all.

[Justin Swanton]

Let me do a brief breakdown of this.

He will never be proven wrong. It's an impossibility. Even if we find a Persian record of the campaign which showed the Army was barely 100,000 strong, it might merely be a propaganda account to talk away the defeat.

We haven't found one yet but we do have other sources all of which give huge numbers for the Persian armies.

For me, it's the big picture. Given what I know about grazing, and grain production and storage,

grazing - it was established that even poor grazing ground in Greece would be enough to feed the animals of the Persian army from the campsite itself and a little around. Average and good grazing ground would feed them from the campsite alone.

grain production - grain production does not have to notably increase since there are not actually more mouths to feed. It's more about moving the grain to where the army will need it.

storage - it was established that grain can be stored for years in a dry climate and provided it is properly dried beforehand and kept in a reasonably dry environment (e.g. sealed amphorae) it can probably last a considerable length of time in a not-so-dry climate.

given what I've read about agriculture in the area

agriculture in the area - meaning I presume Thrace, Macedonia and Greece proper would not be a factor since the locals - following the rule of thumb of the Thasians - supplied the Persian army only the occasional meal, something well within their means.

and in the period, given what I've read about Persian armies at the time, the internal politics of the Empire, the fact that this can only  be done using techniques nobody used before or since. Everything conspires against Xerxes and his horde

Persian armies at the time - The primary sources give huge numbers for the Persian armies at the time. Contemporary scholars give numbers a fraction of these sizes. One chooses who to believe.

internal politics of the Empire - this did not affect a campaign since a Persian king ensured his grip on power was secure before setting out with his army.

techniques nobody used before or since - the only such technique looked at in this thread is a cross-country advance of the Persian army. People do it all the time - I do it when I hike. It's hardly remarkable. Many post-Persian armies didn't do it because it wasn't necessary. Once the Persian bluff of huge numbers had been called and Alexander conquered the Persian Empire with an army of about 40 000 men, subsequent armies used paths where paths were available and marched in narrow columns anyway since they could quickly form up for battle that way and could march from camp to camp in a single day.

[Jim Webster]

Fair enough. Alexander's tent corresponds closely to a Persian royal pavilion and may even have been the tent of Darius.

The question then remains how big the tent of the Thasians was and how many Persian notables it held, which then questions what percentage of the 400 talents was spent regaling the Persian high command what percentage was spent feeding the ordinary troops. Which then leaves the number of ordinary troops an open question if we just look at the Thasian supper.

One point though: the Thasian tent was made specifically for a supper, not for judging cases. How many men of the Persian army would be of a sufficient rank to dine with the king? A couple of dozen? A hundred? More? That would help to get some idea of the size of the tent.

One other final point: assume an army of 4 million men. It would take 111 talents to feed them for a day - give them the equivalent of one really good meal. That leaves 80 talents = US$3,560,000.00 for Darius and VIPs.

From memory there are accounts of Alexander the Great feasting very large numbers of people.
Given summer weather in the area, it's probably not too unreasonable to have the big tent for the inner party, perhaps a couple of hundred, but with the sides rolled up and as many thousand as you wanted sitting around, with more formality the nearer you got to the king's tent 
I don't think the tent needs to be limiting in that I don't think the size of the tent is linked to the size of the army. So it might have been a modest tent but with tens of thousands of men drawn up around it eating.

[Jim Webster]

Let me do a brief breakdown of this.

He will never be proven wrong. It's an impossibility. Even if we find a Persian record of the campaign which showed the Army was barely 100,000 strong, it might merely be a propaganda account to talk away the defeat.

We haven't found one yet but we do have other sources all of which give huge numbers for the Persian armies.

For me, it's the big picture. Given what I know about grazing, and grain production and storage,

grazing - it was established that even poor grazing ground in Greece would be enough to feed the animals of the Persian army from the campsite itself and a little around. Average and good grazing ground would feed them from the campsite alone.

I disputed that one at the time, it isn't unless the camp sites are specifically chosen on well fertilised hayfields 800 hectares in extent

[Jim Webster]

Let me do a brief breakdown of this.

He will never be proven wrong. It's an impossibility. Even if we find a Persian record of the campaign which showed the Army was barely 100,000 strong, it might merely be a propaganda account to talk away the defeat.

We haven't found one yet but we do have other sources all of which give huge numbers for the Persian armies.

For me, it's the big picture. Given what I know about grazing, and grain production and storage,

grazing - it was established that even poor grazing ground in Greece would be enough to feed the animals of the Persian army from the campsite itself and a little around. Average and good grazing ground would feed them from the campsite alone.

grain production - grain production does not have to notably increase since there are not actually more mouths to feed. It's more about moving the grain to where the army will need it.

I made that point. But I also pointed out that unless you have sea or major river transport, you have to get the grain from somewhere else. It can be argued how far you can more grain by pack animals, but ten days to a fortnight seems to be the limit. So troops fetched from beyond Babylonia would have to be supplied from new sources of supply

[Justin Swanton]

Let me do a brief breakdown of this.

He will never be proven wrong. It's an impossibility. Even if we find a Persian record of the campaign which showed the Army was barely 100,000 strong, it might merely be a propaganda account to talk away the defeat.

We haven't found one yet but we do have other sources all of which give huge numbers for the Persian armies.

For me, it's the big picture. Given what I know about grazing, and grain production and storage,

grazing - it was established that even poor grazing ground in Greece would be enough to feed the animals of the Persian army from the campsite itself and a little around. Average and good grazing ground would feed them from the campsite alone.

I disputed that one at the time, it isn't unless the camp sites are specifically chosen on well fertilised hayfields 800 hectares in extent

They don't have to be well fertilized hayfields - check the posts on the fodder content of unimproved Greek pasture.

[Jim Webster]

Let me do a brief breakdown of this.

He will never be proven wrong. It's an impossibility. Even if we find a Persian record of the campaign which showed the Army was barely 100,000 strong, it might merely be a propaganda account to talk away the defeat.

We haven't found one yet but we do have other sources all of which give huge numbers for the Persian armies.

For me, it's the big picture. Given what I know about grazing, and grain production and storage,

grazing - it was established that even poor grazing ground in Greece would be enough to feed the animals of the Persian army from the campsite itself and a little around. Average and good grazing ground would feed them from the campsite alone.

grain production - grain production does not have to notably increase since there are not actually more mouths to feed. It's more about moving the grain to where the army will need it.

storage - it was established that grain can be stored for years in a dry climate and provided it is properly dried beforehand and kept in a reasonably dry environment (e.g. sealed amphorae) it can probably last a considerable length of time in a not-so-dry climate.

It has been asserted that this can be done.
evidence has been presented for small amounts being preserved in Egyptian graves
Better underground storage facilities were possible, but the examples given were of ground that remained cold, and the fact that you'd need thousands of six meter deep underground grain bins which would still be on the archaeological record seem to indicate that this wasn't done

[Jim Webster]

Let me do a brief breakdown of this.

He will never be proven wrong. It's an impossibility. Even if we find a Persian record of the campaign which showed the Army was barely 100,000 strong, it might merely be a propaganda account to talk away the defeat.

We haven't found one yet but we do have other sources all of which give huge numbers for the Persian armies.

For me, it's the big picture. Given what I know about grazing, and grain production and storage,

grazing - it was established that even poor grazing ground in Greece would be enough to feed the animals of the Persian army from the campsite itself and a little around. Average and good grazing ground would feed them from the campsite alone.

I disputed that one at the time, it isn't unless the camp sites are specifically chosen on well fertilised hayfields 800 hectares in extent

They don't have to be well fertilized hayfields - check the posts on the fodder content of unimproved Greek pasture.

I read it, it specifically said it wasn't bad grazing for goats. I highlighted this at the time

edited to add, and I think the stocking rate given was low as well

[Jim Webster]

techniques nobody used before or since - the only such technique looked at in this thread is a cross-country advance of the Persian army. People do it all the time - I do it when I hike. It's hardly remarkable. Many post-Persian armies didn't do it because it wasn't necessary. Once the Persian bluff of huge numbers had been called and Alexander conquered the Persian Empire with an army of about 40 000 men, subsequent armies used paths where paths were available and marched in narrow columns anyway since they could quickly form up for battle that way and could march from camp to camp in a single day.

no, we've also had people assume the use of millions of amphorae for grain transport which wasn't much used, we've had the development of multiyear grain stores on a vast scale, the list goes on

[Flaminpig0]

Actually the argument put forward has been the reverse; that doubting Herodotus's figures s an exemplar of 'cultural racism'

Let us straighten out this misrepresentation.  'Cultural racism' (or we can call it 'cultural vanity' in order to avoid using an -ism) is the imposition of our own outlook on previous culture(s), which I regret some people do in spades, perhaps through unfamiliarity with the culture(s) in question, and as part of the process automatically reject any really significant achievement by such cultures, principally:
1) Fielding very large numbers
2) Defeating large numbers with small numbers
3) Possessing organisational capabilities in excess of those found in intervening ages.

and in any casedemeans the Persians as it implies they were primitive.

More importantly, it seems to assume that the Achaemenids would follow our imposed picture of them, a standpoint of arrogance based on ignorance.  Arrogance can be lived with; it is the ignorance which is so damaging.

Obviously the intent on the part of those defending Herodotus figures  is not to dehumanise the Persians but the arguments they put forward  depicts the Empire in a very peculiar way which does accidentaly imping on ideas of orientalism.

Imping??

impinge


This doesn't make much if any sense Patrick, you claim your are being misrepresented but then point out exactly why you aren't
The world is divided into two camps. The first camp consists of Patrick and Herodotus whilst the second  are those who disagree with them due to their arrogance, ignorance, a desire to belittle the past and unlike the first camp their lack of first hand familiarity with the Persian Empire.

[Justin Swanton]

Let me do a brief breakdown of this.

He will never be proven wrong. It's an impossibility. Even if we find a Persian record of the campaign which showed the Army was barely 100,000 strong, it might merely be a propaganda account to talk away the defeat.

We haven't found one yet but we do have other sources all of which give huge numbers for the Persian armies.

For me, it's the big picture. Given what I know about grazing, and grain production and storage,

grazing - it was established that even poor grazing ground in Greece would be enough to feed the animals of the Persian army from the campsite itself and a little around. Average and good grazing ground would feed them from the campsite alone.

grain production - grain production does not have to notably increase since there are not actually more mouths to feed. It's more about moving the grain to where the army will need it.

I made that point. But I also pointed out that unless you have sea or major river transport, you have to get the grain from somewhere else. It can be argued how far you can more grain by pack animals, but ten days to a fortnight seems to be the limit. So troops fetched from beyond Babylonia would have to be supplied from new sources of supply

Right. So the Persian Empire needs to move a lot of grain from their sources to the storage ports in Asia Minor and the depots along the Thracian/Macedonian coastline. It then needs to ship this grain to the army marching along the coastline. This is the big challenge for the Persian infrastructure.

What are the major sources of supply of grain in the Persian Empire? Can grain be transported overland from these sources to the Mediterranean coast? Bear in mind that an army doesn't carry more than about a week's grain to feed itself. But a grain caravan can transport a large load of grain much longer distances without having to eat it all.

If we limit the grain supply sources to Egypt, the Black Sea and the coastline and adjacent hinterland of Asia Minor and Syria/Palestine, will that supply enough grain? Bear in mind that over 400 000 tons of grain were shipped to Rome from Carthage each year. About the same amount of grain would be required by the army for its entire campaign - a 4 month round trip with 4000 tons per day for about 4 million men. With 4 years' planning, it should have been possible to procure it from these areas. (interesting all these 4's)

It may not be necessary for these areas to grow much more than usual as they supplied customers beyond the Persian Empire. Xerxes could simply have mandated that all surplus grain was not to be exported but stored up for the army. Egyptian grain could have been stored in situ. It would have kept until it was shipped to the major depots around the Aegean in the year before the campaign. Ditto for Syrian/Palestinian grain and grain from drier parts of Asia Minor. Not so sure about grain from the Black Sea. (one consequence of this arrangement is that the folks at home in the Persian hinterland would have had plenty of nosh whilst the army was away  )

[Erpingham]

Not intending to reply in detail to Patrick's long reposte because much has been said since, but I can't let this go by

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.

Independent evidence is from a different source, not copied directly or indirectly from the original.  I do not believe that, if something is internally consistent, it is true.  It is a good sign but not decisive.  To suggest wanting independent evidence is a "cop-out" is a bit alarming.  If we don't test our sources - if we just treat them as infallible - where are we?  And finally, in the context, I was pointing out that just relying on the single source can lead to circular arguments, which this debate is prone to.

[Erpingham]

So it is possible to discuss Herodotus as a kind of entertaining mental exercise, but to consider that he might actually have got his numbers right is to put him on a pedestal and make him a demi-god.

Would you consider that a fair assessment?

No, to treat his words as holy writ is to put him on a pedestal and make him a demi-god.  We should do Herodotus the credit of treating him as an extraordinary man of his time.  That means trying to place him in his world, being aware of his skills as a story teller and writer and of his agendas and viewpoints (his view of the persians is still very Greek).