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

[Justin Swanton]

ork.

There is no evidence grain was transported by ship in amphorae, granted. Sacks or loose seems to be have been the standard method. I suggested that the grain from Egypt and the Mediterranean coastline could have been shipped in amphorae if the local Greeks could not manufacture enough in quantity, but on reflection it makes more sense to transplant the potters in Greece, have them make the amphorae there (if amphorae were used), and then just ship the grain loose or in sacks. Bear in mind you don't need a vast army of potters, just a few thousand. A potter can make 4 amphorae in a day. You would need 5000 - 6000 potters to make the necessary amphorae. 6000 potters x 4 amphorae a day x 250 days per year (I let them goof off for 4 months a year) x 4 years = 24 million amphorae, should be enough for storing the long-term grain. Given them just Sundays off and it's nearly 30 million amphorae.

Justin, are you aware of the concept of Occam's razor.

I am indeed. And....?

You don't think it is more likely that Herodotus was wrong about the size of the Persian army than the alternative hypothesis which relies on a lot of supposition  to make it even remotely plausible.

Not quite. Occam's razor means that the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest number of suppositions, is likely to be the right one.

In this discussion those advocating taking Herodotus at his word need show only that supporting and moving such a huge army is feasible.

Those who oppose Herodotus need to show not only that supporting and moving such a huge army is not feasible (which involves another range of suppositions), but must also make the assumption that a careful writer like Herodotus is wildly wrong on the biggest single fact of his account - the size of the Persian army. This makes for a rather complicated razor.

[Justin Swanton]

On a different tack, Askleipidotus affirms that the open file order of 2 cubits or 6 feet or 2 yards per file is natural, and doesn't have a special name. I used this open order when calculating the width of the hypothetical Persian column. Here is an article that establishes experimentally that people on average prefer about a metre of space between themselves and strangers or acquaintances (a little less for acquaintainces). Go to the tables on p585 (9 of 16). One more reason to respect the primary sources.

[Jim Webster]

Is there any archaeological evidence for the several million man army?

They folded their tents, like the Arabs,
      And as silently steal away.



We have an Empire with an estimated population of 50 million
(So 25 million of them male and perhaps 17 million of them of working/military age)
And you take six million of them on a jaunt outside the empire, as well as employing 300,000 as extra labourers in Egypt, I forget how many thousand as amphorae manufacturers, we have men building ships, crewing extra merchant ships, we have untold thousands already on site, clearing roads and digging canals. If we call this another million, that gives us 7 million

In WW2 the Americans had 9% (approximately) of their population in the military. Germany hit 31% in some form of service, but that may include men who did their day job and served as firewatchers at night

Xerxes took 14% of his population, when the vast majority of them were involved in subsistence agriculture. He removed from the economy about 40% of men of working age.
Agriculture would have collapsed and you'd have had massed starvation in home provinces. Who was sowing the crop in Babylonia that was to be harvested whilst xerxes and his lads were in Northern Greece? Who was there left to harvest it?

Don't quite see the problem Jim. Xerxes takes 6 million men and leaves behind 11 million of working age. The 11 million men (2/3 of the labour force) manage the farms possibly helped by the women. Is there any reason why this should be unmanageable?

yes, what do you think the women are doing already? Painting their nails? They're already working
The 11 million men (which has been pointed out is probably an over estimate) have got enough to do as it is.
Do you honestly think a subsistence agricultural economy can survive if you remove 40% of the manpower?
Actually it wouldn't happen, provinces would just rebel because they could see the writing on the wall. They at least would know what would happen if you took all those men away from agriculture.

[Jim Webster]

Not quite. Occam's razor means that the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest number of suppositions, is likely to be the right one.

In this discussion those advocating taking Herodotus at his word need show only that supporting and moving such a huge army is feasible.

we're still waiting for you to do it.
Starting with how your economy survives with 40% of the manpower missing

[Imperial Dave]

Not quite. Occam's razor means that the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest number of suppositions, is likely to be the right one.

In this discussion those advocating taking Herodotus at his word need show only that supporting and moving such a huge army is feasible.

we're still waiting for you to do it.
Starting with how your economy survives with 40% of the manpower missing

nick the grain off the invaded lands 

[Flaminpig0]

ork.

There is no evidence grain was transported by ship in amphorae, granted. Sacks or loose seems to be have been the standard method. I suggested that the grain from Egypt and the Mediterranean coastline could have been shipped in amphorae if the local Greeks could not manufacture enough in quantity, but on reflection it makes more sense to transplant the potters in Greece, have them make the amphorae there (if amphorae were used), and then just ship the grain loose or in sacks. Bear in mind you don't need a vast army of potters, just a few thousand. A potter can make 4 amphorae in a day. You would need 5000 - 6000 potters to make the necessary amphorae. 6000 potters x 4 amphorae a day x 250 days per year (I let them goof off for 4 months a year) x 4 years = 24 million amphorae, should be enough for storing the long-term grain. Given them just Sundays off and it's nearly 30 million amphorae.

Justin, are you aware of the concept of Occam's razor.

I am indeed. And....?

You don't think it is more likely that Herodotus was wrong about the size of the Persian army than the alternative hypothesis which relies on a lot of supposition  to make it even remotely plausible.

Not quite. Occam's razor means that the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest number of suppositions, is likely to be the right one.

In this discussion those advocating taking Herodotus at his word need show only that supporting and moving such a huge army is feasible.

Those who oppose Herodotus need to show not only that supporting and moving such a huge army is not feasible (which involves another range of suppositions), but must also make the assumption that a careful writer like Herodotus is wildly wrong on the biggest single fact of his account - the size of the Persian army. This makes for a rather complicated razor.

Oh, and how many suppositions have you made to support your hypothesis ?

[Flaminpig0]

Not quite. Occam's razor means that the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest number of suppositions, is likely to be the right one.

In this discussion those advocating taking Herodotus at his word need show only that supporting and moving such a huge army is feasible.

we're still waiting for you to do it.
Starting with how your economy survives with 40% of the manpower missing

Obvious answer- there are representation in Greek art of armed women wearing Persian style clothing which as we don't have evidence to the contrary we can only assume is an accurate depiction of reality.  That would therefore mean that the  Persian Empire, as it used women as troops ( they arent doing anything useful) would have the resources to run an agricultural based economy and deploy 5 million men/women as an invasion force. 

[Jim Webster]

Not quite. Occam's razor means that the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest number of suppositions, is likely to be the right one.

In this discussion those advocating taking Herodotus at his word need show only that supporting and moving such a huge army is feasible.

we're still waiting for you to do it.
Starting with how your economy survives with 40% of the manpower missing

nick the grain off the invaded lands 

that would work, Greece being such a major grain exporter and all 

[Jim Webster]

Not quite. Occam's razor means that the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest number of suppositions, is likely to be the right one.

In this discussion those advocating taking Herodotus at his word need show only that supporting and moving such a huge army is feasible.

we're still waiting for you to do it.
Starting with how your economy survives with 40% of the manpower missing

Obvious answer- there are representation in Greek art of armed women wearing Persian style clothing which as we don't have evidence to the contrary we can only assume is an accurate depiction of reality.  That would therefore mean that the  Persian Empire, as it used women as troops ( they arent doing anything useful) would have the resources to run an agricultural based economy and deploy 5 million men/women as an invasion force. 

Funny Herodotus didn't mention it. must have slipped his mind
I think we can agree that the idea of an invasion force of six million produced by an empire with a population of 50 million is just silly and Herodotus, even if he didn't invent the figures, wrongly applied figures he'd found

[Erpingham]

Those who oppose Herodotus need to show not only that supporting and moving such a huge army is not feasible (which involves another range of suppositions), but must also make the assumption that a careful writer like Herodotus is wildly wrong on the biggest single fact of his account - the size of the Persian army.

But as is often said, the burden of proof is really with those wishing to create a new paradigm.  Numerous scholars and professional soldiers have concluded that Herodotus' figures are not practical and this is the orthodox position.  Saying "My supposition which I have not seriously researched is an equal level of supposition" is misleading.  The leaps of imagination so far have been dramatic - giant stores, massive organisational efficiency, huge densely occupied  camps, enormously wide roads through the wilderness, dramatic fodder production, a mighty amphora industry, super mules.  Against this, the mainstream has only to put the question "what if the army was very large rather than supersized"?  So many issues resolve and we stop needing an unevidenced superiority over all other ancient societies.  It doesn't make the Persian achievement any less in the context of its time, but it does reduce the need for huge imaginative constructions.

[Flaminpig0]

Not quite. Occam's razor means that the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest number of suppositions, is likely to be the right one.

In this discussion those advocating taking Herodotus at his word need show only that supporting and moving such a huge army is feasible.

we're still waiting for you to do it.
Starting with how your economy survives with 40% of the manpower missing

Obvious answer- there are representation in Greek art of armed women wearing Persian style clothing which as we don't have evidence to the contrary we can only assume is an accurate depiction of reality.  That would therefore mean that the  Persian Empire, as it used women as troops ( they arent doing anything useful) would have the resources to run an agricultural based economy and deploy 5 million men/women as an invasion force. 

Funny Herodotus didn't mention it. must have slipped his mind
I think we can agree that the idea of an invasion force of six million produced by an empire with a population of 50 million is just silly and Herodotus, even if he didn't invent the figures, wrongly applied figures he'd found

Its silly is the correct response - can you imagine as a messenger arriving at a camp of six million people and asking to be taken to  Xerxes-' 'sorry mate I have no bloody idea where he is in this hellish multitude just head towards the sun and hope for the best..

[Justin Swanton]

ork.

There is no evidence grain was transported by ship in amphorae, granted. Sacks or loose seems to be have been the standard method. I suggested that the grain from Egypt and the Mediterranean coastline could have been shipped in amphorae if the local Greeks could not manufacture enough in quantity, but on reflection it makes more sense to transplant the potters in Greece, have them make the amphorae there (if amphorae were used), and then just ship the grain loose or in sacks. Bear in mind you don't need a vast army of potters, just a few thousand. A potter can make 4 amphorae in a day. You would need 5000 - 6000 potters to make the necessary amphorae. 6000 potters x 4 amphorae a day x 250 days per year (I let them goof off for 4 months a year) x 4 years = 24 million amphorae, should be enough for storing the long-term grain. Given them just Sundays off and it's nearly 30 million amphorae.

Justin, are you aware of the concept of Occam's razor.

I am indeed. And....?

You don't think it is more likely that Herodotus was wrong about the size of the Persian army than the alternative hypothesis which relies on a lot of supposition  to make it even remotely plausible.

Not quite. Occam's razor means that the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest number of suppositions, is likely to be the right one.

In this discussion those advocating taking Herodotus at his word need show only that supporting and moving such a huge army is feasible.

Those who oppose Herodotus need to show not only that supporting and moving such a huge army is not feasible (which involves another range of suppositions), but must also make the assumption that a careful writer like Herodotus is wildly wrong on the biggest single fact of his account - the size of the Persian army. This makes for a rather complicated razor.

Oh, and how many suppositions have you made to support your hypothesis ?

Just one, that the Persian army marched cross-country. The rest was a feasibility study in economics and logistics where, taking the data we have, I try to demonstrate that the Persians could have done it (as opposed to actually did it) whereas my worthy opponents argue that they couldn't. But that's not making suppositions.

Even the cross-country bit is not so much of a supposition since there are a couple of sources showing a Persian army doing just that - sure, in one case the army is nearing the enemy but it's too far away to face any threat marching in column until it gets close.

Something else came to mind whilst thinking about the manuals: Asklepiodotus describes a whole variety of marching formations of which most do not involve following along a single track and many of those do not even involve keeping in column. It seems the Macedonian army at least was not the least bit bothered by marching off-road in nice, tight battle formations.

[Jim Webster]

Just one, that the Persian army marched cross country. The rest was a feasibility study in economics and logistics where, taking the data we have, I try to demonstrate that the Persians could have done it (as opposed to actually did it) whereas my worthy opponents argue that they couldn't. But that's not making suppositions.

the economics and logistics breaks down spectacularly at the population level
Even when you look at it as Greece probably having about 12.5 million population. Xerxes is turning up with 50% of the population of Greece!

Xerxes would be attempting, with a population supported by subsistence agriculture, something which countries with modern 20th century manufacturing economies struggled to achieve.

[Justin Swanton]

Just one, that the Persian army marched cross country. The rest was a feasibility study in economics and logistics where, taking the data we have, I try to demonstrate that the Persians could have done it (as opposed to actually did it) whereas my worthy opponents argue that they couldn't. But that's not making suppositions.

the economics and logistics breaks down spectacularly at the population level
Even when you look at it as Greece probably having about 12.5 million population. Xerxes is turning up with 50% of the population of Greece!

Xerxes would be attempting, with a population supported by subsistence agriculture, something which countries with modern 20th century manufacturing economies struggled to achieve.

12,5 million is an interesting number. The land area of Greece is 131 957 km² which would give you 94 people per square kilometer. The land area of the Persian Empire was 5 500 000 km², which makes the Persian empire nearly 42 times larger than Greece. Greek land is not particularly arable or conducive to large populations, so even if we assume that Persian to Greek density was 1:4 that should still give a population of well over 100 000 000 people. Why are the estimates for the Persian population at 50 million or less? How reliable are these estimates?

[Jim Webster]

Just one, that the Persian army marched cross country. The rest was a feasibility study in economics and logistics where, taking the data we have, I try to demonstrate that the Persians could have done it (as opposed to actually did it) whereas my worthy opponents argue that they couldn't. But that's not making suppositions.

the economics and logistics breaks down spectacularly at the population level
Even when you look at it as Greece probably having about 12.5 million population. Xerxes is turning up with 50% of the population of Greece!

Xerxes would be attempting, with a population supported by subsistence agriculture, something which countries with modern 20th century manufacturing economies struggled to achieve.

12,5 million is an interesting number. The land area of Greece is 131 957 km² which would give you 94 people per square kilometer. The land area of the Persian Empire was 5 500 000 km², which makes the Persian empire nearly 42 times larger than Greece. Greek land is not particularly arable or conducive to large populations, so even if we assume that Persian to Greek density was 1:4 that should still give a population of well over 100 000 000 people. Why are the estimates for the Persian population at 50 million or less? How reliable are these estimates?

a damned sight more reliable than Herodotus
Actually 50 million is on the high side of the estimates
Remember geographers tend to deduct deserts and major mountain ranges from the area before doing the estimates.