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

[Mark G]

Actually, I would be interested in any evidence of Egypt exporting grain in this period.

If you look at the wars, rebellions and invasions', the changes of dynasty, and all that entails in its recent past, I wonder whether it was stable enough to be a food exporter until much later.

The great dynasties were more known for being rich in gold, I thought.

And in the same vein, is it not a fundamental of the Persian economy that they never paid for things they could demand as tribute?  I believe there is a sound analysis that they were so keen on hoarding gold that it threatened the entire empires cash flow.

[Andreas Johansson]

From Appendix 1 in Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565-1204 by John F. Haldon.  Most of the Appendix can be viewed via Google. Appendix 2 is on using grain to feed armies but alas most of it is inaccessible.  I suspect some members of the forum own the book and may be able to help.

I do, but I'm not about to go back and look for what the original question was. I'm happy to answer direct questions in reply to this post.

[Andreas Johansson]

I am assuming that no one is going to argue that the things were produced in Henry Ford style factories as part of a centralised command economy?

I once read a review of a book that apparently argued that the Greeks won because they had a capitalist economy while the Persians had a command one. The Union of Achaemenid Socialist Satrapies?

It is perhaps no surprise to anyone I didn't add the book to the wishlist. Nor do I recall the title; I seem to recall the author was some political or journalist type rather than an academic historian.

[Flaminpig0]

I am assuming that no one is going to argue that the things were produced in Henry Ford style factories as part of a centralised command economy?

I once read a review of a book that apparently argued that the Greeks won because they had a capitalist economy while the Persians had a command one. The Union of Achaemenid Socialist Satrapies?

It is perhaps no surprise to anyone I didn't add the book to the wishlist. Nor do I recall the title; I seem to recall the author was some political or journalist type rather than an academic historian.

I suspect the book was American
This article looks interesting http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/economy-iii

[Imperial Dave]

great find Ian

[Patrick Waterson]

nobody produces surplus grain except by accident.

Beg pardon, but this is quite incorrect.  Egypt, for example, produced surplus grain all the time, except during a famine.  One should also remember that taxation was usually taken in grain and livestock, not coin, prior to the Roman Empire, and this meant that producing a significant surplus was built into people's lifestyles.

The grain market is a very inelastic thing. If you produce 5% under, you have civil disturbance, riots, and some people will go hungry.
If you produce 5% over, the price collapses because that 5% is frantically chasing any sort of market at all and drives the price down. After all nobody is going to eat an extra meal of barley bread.

This may be true of a mediaeval market or even England prior to the Corn Laws.  It is not true in a civilisation and culture where the majority of grain is not privately owned but is managed by the state.  For the 'laws' of supply and demand to operate one needs speculators.  Speculators did not exist under Biblical monarchies and, somewhat to my surprise, I found no evidence of corn speculators before Roman times (counting Carthage as being during 'Roman times').  The ability of the state to issue grain when it was needed essentially cut the knees from under potential speculators.  Validation of this point can be seen by what happened during a siege, when the state had no reserves to issue and prices charged by private individuals for food were whatever the top end of the market would bear.

It was more difficult once speculators became well established, as they did under the Roman Empire.  Julian in AD 360-1 tried to curb the grain speculators by releasing quantities of state-held corn onto the market at low prices, but such were the speculators' resources that they bought it all up and people were no better off than before.  Without the speculators Julian would have fed the population at affordable prices and that would have been that.

[Patrick Waterson]

'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,

But fortunately is rare in this forum.  However, if application of critical thinking, based on a Western tradition, is cultural vanity then many of us will be guilty as charged.   As to "imposition of our own outlook", it is something we all do.  The "sources first" approach is equally an "imposition of our own outlook".  So, maybe, stepping back and being a little less judgemental  of others legitimate intellectual approaches may be the way to go.

It is an understandable intellectual approach - there is nothing morally reprehensible about expressing an outlook based on one's own culture - but it is not legitimate for understanding other cultures at different periods in history.

An example.  NATO officers were encouraged by a Soviet defector to think what a Soviet officer would do in a simple battlefield situation (you can read the example in Viktor Suvorov's Inside the Soviet Army).  Not a single NATO officer ever got it right.  This demonstrates how easy it is to misunderstand the motivation and thinking even of contemporary cultures.  Had the Cold War gone hot, battles could have been lost because of this simple failure to appreciate how another culture thought.  Dealing with history, the consequences of applying one's own culture are less drastic but no less misleading.

[Patrick Waterson]

I think I calculated that something like 88 million of them would be needed. We should have found the traces of breakages archaeologically by now

Does the term 'ostraca' ring a bell?

[Patrick Waterson]

Actually, I would be interested in any evidence of Egypt exporting grain in this period.

If you look at the wars, rebellions and invasions', the changes of dynasty, and all that entails in its recent past, I wonder whether it was stable enough to be a food exporter until much later.

Look at Egypt in the 4th century BC, where we have a certain amount of information.  It revolts from Persia c.395 BC, fends off a reconquest attempt in 374-3 BC, exports grain to various places in Greece throughout much of the 4th century and in return gets mercenary contingents from one or another of the leading cities.  Despite the 'disturbances' (including a three-cornered civil war in 360-359) it was happily producing a surplus right up to the Persian reconquest in 343 BC.

The great dynasties were more known for being rich in gold, I thought.

Whenever they had access to Nubia, they had access to Nubian gold.  As was customary for a Biblical period monarchy, they tended to store it up except when major building projects (canals, pyramids, temples, etc.) were under way.

And in the same vein, is it not a fundamental of the Persian economy that they never paid for things they could demand as tribute?  I believe there is a sound analysis that they were so keen on hoarding gold that it threatened the entire empires cash flow.

This is an important point: the King of Kings demanded what he needed - or wanted - as tribute.  Tribute gold went into the royal coffers, resulting in the huge stocks of precious metals found by Alexander.  Tribute grain went into the royal store-houses; tribute animals into the royal herds.  This could (and did) feed the King's court and dependents, and in addition the various satrapies could be ordered to support a campaign, which usually required lengthy preparation.  While (as the Iranicaonline article Ian found points out) there were various degrees of legal ownership in the Achaemenid Empire, at the end of the day everything was subject to the King's command and anyone disobedient or even unduly reluctant could find his 'independent' holding sequestered and himself on top of a sharp wooden object.

[Jim Webster]

nobody produces surplus grain except by accident.

Beg pardon, but this is quite incorrect.  Egypt, for example, produced surplus grain all the time, except during a famine.  One should also remember that taxation was usually taken in grain and livestock, not coin, prior to the Roman Empire, and this meant that producing a significant surplus was built into people's lifestyles.

If it's built into the system it's not a surplus. You don't say you've got surplus in your salary because the government takes tax off it.

A surplus is grain for which there is no home. Growing grain to pay tax with is no different to growing grain to eat. It's not surplus, it's already allocated

[Jim Webster]

The grain market is a very inelastic thing. If you produce 5% under, you have civil disturbance, riots, and some people will go hungry.
If you produce 5% over, the price collapses because that 5% is frantically chasing any sort of market at all and drives the price down. After all nobody is going to eat an extra meal of barley bread.

This may be true of a mediaeval market or even England prior to the Corn Laws.  It is not true in a civilisation and culture where the majority of grain is not privately owned but is managed by the state. 

Please can I have some evidence that the Persian state managed the grain market throughout the Empire
Given that with land tenure the state in Egypt didn't even control all the land. The land was held by temple estates and large private estates, often of Persian and other nobles, and we know from the record they gave orders to buy and sell commodies

[Jim Webster]

I think I calculated that something like 88 million of them would be needed. We should have found the traces of breakages archaeologically by now

Does the term 'ostraca' ring a bell?

yes and I note with interest the fact that there are not heaps of distinctive Egyptian produced broken Amphorae discovered by archaeologists on the sites of five huge grain depots

[Jim Webster]

This is an important point: the King of Kings demanded what he needed - or wanted - as tribute.  Tribute gold went into the royal coffers, resulting in the huge stocks of precious metals found by Alexander.  Tribute grain went into the royal store-houses; tribute animals into the royal herds.  This could (and did) feed the King's court and dependents, and in addition the various satrapies could be ordered to support a campaign, which usually required lengthy preparation.  While (as the Iranicaonline article Ian found points out) there were various degrees of legal ownership in the Achaemenid Empire, at the end of the day everything was subject to the King's command and anyone disobedient or even unduly reluctant could find his 'independent' holding sequestered and himself on top of a sharp wooden object.

Indeed, as Cambyses, Bardiya and Xerxes were to discover

[Imperial Dave]

nobody produces surplus grain except by accident.

Beg pardon, but this is quite incorrect.  Egypt, for example, produced surplus grain all the time, except during a famine.  One should also remember that taxation was usually taken in grain and livestock, not coin, prior to the Roman Empire, and this meant that producing a significant surplus was built into people's lifestyles.

If it's built into the system it's not a surplus. You don't say you've got surplus in your salary because the government takes tax off it.

A surplus is grain for which there is no home. Growing grain to pay tax with is no different to growing grain to eat. It's not surplus, it's already allocated

good point Jim although you could argue for the definition either way. I definitely take your point that this is allocated already its part of what people need to eat and to live off through payment

[Jim Webster]

nobody produces surplus grain except by accident.

Beg pardon, but this is quite incorrect.  Egypt, for example, produced surplus grain all the time, except during a famine.  One should also remember that taxation was usually taken in grain and livestock, not coin, prior to the Roman Empire, and this meant that producing a significant surplus was built into people's lifestyles.

If it's built into the system it's not a surplus. You don't say you've got surplus in your salary because the government takes tax off it.

A surplus is grain for which there is no home. Growing grain to pay tax with is no different to growing grain to eat. It's not surplus, it's already allocated

good point Jim although you could argue for the definition either way. I definitely take your point that this is allocated already its part of what people need to eat and to live off through payment

certainly I think that's where Justin and I had got to. He felt that Xerxes could block 'exports outside the Empire' without political damage provided he bought the grain himself. (Apologies if I have misrepresented Justin here)
I suspect he could, but I don't think there was all that much grain exported to outside the Empire, the Empire was so damned big.
Ironically here, if the Persian army was a more normal size, say 100,000 men (purely as an example) then this might actually go a way towards feeding them.
The problem is the numbers are so huge in relation to the populations of the countries involved, it gets unmanageable.