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

[Prufrock]

From what I've been able to see from Google maps, there was actually no chokepoint between Asia Minor and Thermopylae that was not either at least 600m wide or could not be bypassed over the hilly ground on either side. The Greeks initially took up position at Tempe until they learned that that chokepoint could be bypassed over the ground to the north, and then stood at Thermopylae precisely because it could not be bypassed until the Persians learned of the goat path. Looking at the terrain just west of Mount Kallidrome the ground is not that steep and not especially broken. It's covered with trees which possibly is what made Xerxes discount it as a route around Leonidas until someone told him there was a path through them.

So there's no choke point at Thermopylae, it's just the forested mountains on one side, the sea on the other, and the necessity of taking a secret path to get around it that make it seem so? Well, I'm sure we're all in agreement on that one ;-)

[Justin Swanton]

At least we seem to be rid of the 'choke points' - up to Thermopylae, at any rate.

Just a reminder that the "choke points" issue came up again when the idea was floated of the army advancing on a broad front.  Justin's work on choke points is still predicated on a 300m road.  Patrick's speculated 3000m wide advance would generate more "choke points" if we define them as when the army has to narrow frontage.

To be fair, I don't think Patrick is suggesting that the Persian army on campaign march habitually advanced on a front of 3000m - though it could do so when nearing the enemy - but that it had no problem with moving cross-country.

[Jim Webster]

At least we seem to be rid of the 'choke points' - up to Thermopylae, at any rate.

No we haven't
You may cheerfully assert that the persian army merely ignored terrain, but assertion doesn't just 'make it so'
We have no evidence of ancient armies using this technique. In a very boring manner they used passes just like everybody else.

[Justin Swanton]

From what I've been able to see from Google maps, there was actually no chokepoint between Asia Minor and Thermopylae that was not either at least 600m wide or could not be bypassed over the hilly ground on either side. The Greeks initially took up position at Tempe until they learned that that chokepoint could be bypassed over the ground to the north, and then stood at Thermopylae precisely because it could not be bypassed until the Persians learned of the goat path. Looking at the terrain just west of Mount Kallidrome the ground is not that steep and not especially broken. It's covered with trees which possibly is what made Xerxes discount it as a route around Leonidas until someone told him there was a path through them.

So there's no choke point at Thermopylae, it's just the forested mountains on one side, the sea on the other, and the necessity of taking a secret path to get around it that make it seem so? Well, I'm sure we're all in agreement on that one ;-)

Not quite. There is no way troops could advance uphill 600m wide on a goat track and the ground, with an elevation of 1 in 3 in places and covered with trees and dense undergrowth (from what I can see) doesn't permit going up on a broad front. So an elite strike force of a few thousand could get around the mountain, but not the entire army.

[Jim Webster]

To be fair, I don't think Patrick is suggesting that the Persian army on campaign march habitually advanced on a front of 3000m - though it could do so when nearing the enemy - but that it had no problem with moving cross-country.

Have we any evidence at all that the Persian army had no problem moving cross country?
Other than they had to have this ability to get five or six million of them through Northern Greece?

[Justin Swanton]

At least we seem to be rid of the 'choke points' - up to Thermopylae, at any rate.

No we haven't
You may cheerfully assert that the persian army merely ignored terrain, but assertion doesn't just 'make it so'
We have no evidence of ancient armies using this technique. In a very boring manner they used passes just like everybody else.

If they were 20 000, 30 000, 40 000 strong, sure, they could just use the passes. Easier that way.

[Justin Swanton]

To be fair, I don't think Patrick is suggesting that the Persian army on campaign march habitually advanced on a front of 3000m - though it could do so when nearing the enemy - but that it had no problem with moving cross-country.

Have we any evidence at all that the Persian army had no problem moving cross country?

Patrick's quotes?

[Prufrock]

From what I've been able to see from Google maps, there was actually no chokepoint between Asia Minor and Thermopylae that was not either at least 600m wide or could not be bypassed over the hilly ground on either side. The Greeks initially took up position at Tempe until they learned that that chokepoint could be bypassed over the ground to the north, and then stood at Thermopylae precisely because it could not be bypassed until the Persians learned of the goat path. Looking at the terrain just west of Mount Kallidrome the ground is not that steep and not especially broken. It's covered with trees which possibly is what made Xerxes discount it as a route around Leonidas until someone told him there was a path through them.

So there's no choke point at Thermopylae, it's just the forested mountains on one side, the sea on the other, and the necessity of taking a secret path to get around it that make it seem so? Well, I'm sure we're all in agreement on that one ;-)

Not quite. There is no way troops could advance uphill 600m wide on a goat track and the ground, with an elevation of 1 in 3 in places and covered with trees and dense undergrowth (from what I can see) doesn't permit going up on a broad front. So an elite strike force of a few thousand could get around the mountain, but not the entire army.

I'm confused. So what were the images of Mt Kallidrome and 'the ground is not that steep, etc' comments for if you do accept that it's a choke point?

[Justin Swanton]

From what I've been able to see from Google maps, there was actually no chokepoint between Asia Minor and Thermopylae that was not either at least 600m wide or could not be bypassed over the hilly ground on either side. The Greeks initially took up position at Tempe until they learned that that chokepoint could be bypassed over the ground to the north, and then stood at Thermopylae precisely because it could not be bypassed until the Persians learned of the goat path. Looking at the terrain just west of Mount Kallidrome the ground is not that steep and not especially broken. It's covered with trees which possibly is what made Xerxes discount it as a route around Leonidas until someone told him there was a path through them.

So there's no choke point at Thermopylae, it's just the forested mountains on one side, the sea on the other, and the necessity of taking a secret path to get around it that make it seem so? Well, I'm sure we're all in agreement on that one ;-)

Not quite. There is no way troops could advance uphill 600m wide on a goat track and the ground, with an elevation of 1 in 3 in places and covered with trees and dense undergrowth (from what I can see) doesn't permit going up on a broad front. So an elite strike force of a few thousand could get around the mountain, but not the entire army.

I'm confused. So what were the images of Mt Kallidrome and 'the ground is not that steep, etc' comments for if you do accept that it's a choke point?

I meant not that steep to go up if you use a track, i.e. the goat track story is believable. I can also envisage the Immortals broadening out and pushing their way through the last few metres of trees so as to emerge in attack formation when assaulting the Greek guard at the top (it'd make a good movie scene).

But a solidly-forested 1 in 3 slope isn't going to work for millions of men going straight up on a broad front. There are limits.

[Prufrock]

I meant not that steep to go up if you use a track, i.e. the goat track story is believable. I can also envisage the Immortals broadening out and pushing their way through the last few metres of trees so as to emerge in attack formation when assaulting the Greek guard at the top (it'd make a good movie scene).

But a solidly-forested 1 in 3 slope isn't going to work for millions of men going straight up on a broad front. There are limits.

Ah no problems, I got the wrong end of the stick - it was just to illustrate the path. Thank you, and sorry for jumping to hasty conclusions!

[Erpingham]

At least we seem to be rid of the 'choke points' - up to Thermopylae, at any rate.

Just a reminder that the "choke points" issue came up again when the idea was floated of the army advancing on a broad front.  Justin's work on choke points is still predicated on a 300m road.  Patrick's speculated 3000m wide advance would generate more "choke points" if we define them as when the army has to narrow frontage.

To be fair, I don't think Patrick is suggesting that the Persian army on campaign march habitually advanced on a front of 3000m - though it could do so when nearing the enemy - but that it had no problem with moving cross-country.

Patrick said

Sadly I have none of an army advancing on so narrow a frontage, but I have two of Persian armies advancing on a considerably greater frontage.  The question is: once I cite them, is Jim going to accept that Persian armies did happily and habitually advance on a wide front rather than in a long column of route?

The intention was to evidence that Persian armies "happily and habitually" moved on a wide front.  I think actually your point about nearing the enemy is key - in both examples this was were they were at.  The other Herodotus example of the Persians, before they are in Greece, seems to show some kind of columnar arrangement - not a narrow column necessarily but not kilometres across either.

[Justin Swanton]

What examples do we have of other armies in Antiquity moving cross-country - at least for considerable stretches - and pretty much ignoring roads/paths?

[Justin Swanton]

As an aside, here's an image of Greek mountain woodland - the stuff the Immortals would have to push through when deploying to attack the Greek guard. Passible but not much fun.

[Jim Webster]

To be fair, I don't think Patrick is suggesting that the Persian army on campaign march habitually advanced on a front of 3000m - though it could do so when nearing the enemy - but that it had no problem with moving cross-country.

Have we any evidence at all that the Persian army had no problem moving cross country?

Patrick's quotes?

The ones that I read do not mention broad formations or troops advancing across a front of thousands of yards

[Erpingham]

I was wondering whether this series on Roman armies on the march might help at all.  Obviously, there are limitations e.g. the assumption of the use of relatively narrow columns but some of the comparative stuff on column makeup and the supplemental section on pace, loads etc. may be handy.