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

[Jim Webster]

Also have you a clue what the annual calving of a herd or lambing of a flock is like. It's every bit as labour intensive as harvest

With modern species, yes.  Do you know how dependent upon human help the species of the period were?

yes
It's pretty standard stuff,

[Erpingham]

The traditional maximum for a paid professional army is 1% of the population.  For a compulsory levy, 10%.  Therein lies your answer.

As a matter of interest, I checked up a couple of other pre-modern empires with big populations and a military model based on a professional core and wider mass levy.

The Mughal Empire in the early 1600s could muster 900,000 men (contemporary estimate but disputed) from an estimated population of 115 million.

Han Dynasty China mustered a maximum of 1 million men (most estimates are less) in a population of 60 million.

So, although bulking out forces through levying nets a bigger percentage than the Romans, not that much bigger.

[Justin Swanton]

Unless we genuinely trying to get to 100 pages, could we perhaps try to fix on something less nebulous?  If the answer from the literalist side to every challenge is "things were different with the Persians" without providing any concrete evidence of this difference, there is no progress.

We talked of suppositions earlier.  I suggested that a basic supposition of the mainstream is that the whole campaign works better with a large army rather than a gigantic one.  Can I ask the literalists where they think the main obstacles to that supposition come within Herodotus' narrative?  What no longer works with a force (for arguments' sake) one tenth the size?  Maybe thinking at the problem from a different angle will take us to new avenues, establish fresh lines of enquiry, rather than tramping back and forth over the same field.

Well sure, one can argue that an army of 200 000 men works well and is less much of a headache for the logistics team than an army of 1,7 million. The Macedonians and Romans worked that one out and created small professional armies that they could maintain on a permanent basis.

The principal problem with that is that Herodotus doesn't give figures of 200 000 men for the Persian army. He is categorical and detailed in his figures which are larger by order of a magnitude. If they're wrong they're fabrications, not simple exaggerations. To reject his numbers effectively reduces him to an incompetent and unscrupulous propagandist - along with every other writer of the time who quotes similar figures (and they all quote them). The question then is: can one feasibly reject Herodotus and the others to this extent?

[Erpingham]

The principal problem with that is that Herodotus doesn't give figures of 200 000 men for the Persian army. He is categorical and detailed in his figures which are larger by order of a magnitude. If they're wrong they're fabrications, not simple exaggerations. To reject his numbers effectively reduces him to an incompetent and unscrupulous propagandist - along with every other writer of the time who quotes similar figures (and the all quote them). The question then is: can one feasibly reject Herodotus and the others to this extent?

So, you see no impediment to a smaller but still very large force other than it involves assuming that Herodotus got his figures wrong? 

As to rejecting Herodotus' figures and those of the swarming multitudes of the barbarians, surely that is why we are here?  Conventional history states that the figures for " the other" are consistently over estimated.  That Herodotus, having been told some tales about the size of the Persian army, believes them, because culturally he is conditioned to think of vast barbarian hordes.  I don't think he fabricated his figures - I think he accepted some figures he was fed, because they fitted his pre-conceptions, then worked out from there, filling in gaps in a consistent manner. In this latter position, I confess I diverge from a lot of historians who do think he just made the numbers up.

Later writers produce figures which are consistent because they are from the same cultural outlook.

[Justin Swanton]

The traditional maximum for a paid professional army is 1% of the population.  For a compulsory levy, 10%.  Therein lies your answer.

Han Dynasty China mustered a maximum of 1 million men (most estimates are less) in a population of 60 million.

But what kind of army? The Han military was composed of volunteers and was very well equipped. It was in fact a professional force with one year of training followed by one year of service.

Compare it to the armies of the Warring States that preceded it. According to this Wiki article, the states of Qin, Chu and Wei could muster between them 2 500 000 infantry, 25 000 horse and 2500 chariots. In addition the state of Han could muster 300 000 men in total and the state of Qi several hundred thousand. We're looking at something like 3 million infantry alone. These figures exclude the numbers for the state of Zhao.

[Erpingham]

The traditional maximum for a paid professional army is 1% of the population.  For a compulsory levy, 10%.  Therein lies your answer.

Han Dynasty China mustered a maximum of 1 million men (most estimates are less) in a population of 60 million.

But what kind of army? The Han military was composed of volunteers and was very well equipped. It was in fact a professional force with one year of training followed by one year of service.

perhaps one of our Chinese specialists would like to reply?  A chose the Han because we actually have a good population estimate.

Compare it to the armies of the Warring States that preceded it. According to this Wiki article, the states of Qin, Chu and Wei could muster between them 2 500 000 infantry, 25 000 horse and 2500 chariots.

Well,

If we are taking the wiki article as a source, don't you think some of the figures are a bit odd?  Like


    Qin
    1,000,000 infantry, 1,000 chariots, 10,000 horses;
    Chu
    same numbers;
   
Also from the same wikipedia article, a few lines below

Many scholars think these numbers are exaggerated (records are inadequate, they are much larger than those from similar societies, soldiers were paid by the number of enemies they killed and the Han dynasty had an interest in exaggerating the bloodiness of the age before China was unified).

And finally :

The various states fielded massive armies of infantry, cavalry, and chariots. Complex logistical systems maintained by efficient government bureaucracies were needed to supply, train, and control such large forces. The size of the armies ranged from tens of thousands to several hundred thousand men.

Overall, that Wiki article could do with a lot more citation of sources.

[Mick Hession]

Compare it to the armies of the Warring States that preceded it. According to this Wiki article, the states of Qin, Chu and Wei could muster between them 2 500 000 infantry, 25 000 horse and 2500 chariots. In addition the state of Han could muster 300 000 men in total and the state of Qi several hundred thousand. We're looking at something like 3 million infantry alone. These figures exclude the numbers for the state of Zhao.

A state having a big army is one thing. Assembling the whole lot in one place and marching it along a single route is a different thing altogether.

Cheers
Mick

[Justin Swanton]

The traditional maximum for a paid professional army is 1% of the population.  For a compulsory levy, 10%.  Therein lies your answer.

Han Dynasty China mustered a maximum of 1 million men (most estimates are less) in a population of 60 million.

But what kind of army? The Han military was composed of volunteers and was very well equipped. It was in fact a professional force with one year of training followed by one year of service.

perhaps one of our Chinese specialists would like to reply?  A chose the Han because we actually have a good population estimate.

Compare it to the armies of the Warring States that preceded it. According to this Wiki article, the states of Qin, Chu and Wei could muster between them 2 500 000 infantry, 25 000 horse and 2500 chariots.

Well,

If we are taking the wiki article as a source, don't you think some of the figures are a bit odd?  Like


    Qin
    1,000,000 infantry, 1,000 chariots, 10,000 horses;
    Chu
    same numbers;
   
Also from the same wikipedia article, a few lines below

Many scholars think these numbers are exaggerated (records are inadequate, they are much larger than those from similar societies, soldiers were paid by the number of enemies they killed and the Han dynasty had an interest in exaggerating the bloodiness of the age before China was unified).

And finally :

The various states fielded massive armies of infantry, cavalry, and chariots. Complex logistical systems maintained by efficient government bureaucracies were needed to supply, train, and control such large forces. The size of the armies ranged from tens of thousands to several hundred thousand men.

Overall, that Wiki article could do with a lot more citation of sources.

Yes of course, many scholars think that army sizes in Antiquity are exaggerated because experts like Maurice tell them. But the many scholars have to prove their case. Their case is not by default proven simply because they propose it.

It is also quite possible that these figures, even though rounded off, are substantially accurate. China at that time had a population just under 60 million people, which produces a nice correlation between Persia and China as regards population size and the size of mass conscript armies.

Re 'similar societies'. The warring states were in a  time of maximum confrontation, where it was in their interest to raise the largest armies possible against their rivals. This was contemporary with the Achaemenid Empire, when size mattered. Notice the diminution of overall military strength during the Han dynasty: no enemies of equal strength to worry about hence no need for a huge army, just a modestly large one (1 million men!) that is trained and well-equipped. Or do we consider the size of the Han army to be an exaggeration?

I can find the sources if it will make any real contribution to this discussion - i.e. if I quote them, will they be put aside as exaggerations?

It might also be an idea to draw up a complete list of affirmations in the primary sources that are considered to be exaggerations by many scholars. It would save the effort of finding and quoting them.

[Erpingham]

do we consider the size of the Han army to be an exaggeration?

It could be - I don't know much about Chinese sources.  I just went with the biggest estimate I could find with a quick Google search.

I can find the sources if it will make any real contribution to this discussion - i.e. if I quote them, will they be put aside as exaggerations?

Quite possibly - I don't know much about source criticism in Chinese studies.  I will only note that when a state is recorded as having armies in neat multiples like those of Qin and Chu, I'm immediately suspicious.

[Justin Swanton]

It might be an interesting mental exercise to put together a picture of the Achaemenid army as per many scholars and an authority like Maurice. As far as I can see, nobody of the orthodox position on the thread doubts Maurice's reliability, with perhaps some cautious doubts - or rather curiosity - concerning his ability to gauge water flow in a river. For the rest no problem, he was a military man so knew what he was talking about.

The size of the army according to many scholars ranges from about 200 000 to 500 000. Let's choose a middle figure of 350 000 men. This army, as per Maurice, needs to march along the roads and tracks. It's a fair assumption that it can't generally march more than about 4 men abreast. Allow 2 metres per rank. Together that give a column 175 000 metres, or 175 km long. The horses and mules will probably double this figure to about 300 km. Naturally the men can't march 300 km from one campsite to the next in a single day, so we need to split it up in segments that can do about 20km in a day = about 15 segments. This means that the army cannot all reach the same campsite in less than 15 days. Does this conflict with anything Herodotus says? If it does I suppose one discounts Herodotus.

What would be the size of this common campsite following Maurice? His estimates make it 8 men per hectare for a compressed campsite (based on a British army corps huddled near a railway line as their only point of supply). At 350 000 men that equals 43 750 hectares or 437,5 square kilometres. The campsite, if in a square shape, would measure 21 x 21 km.

Does anyone have any problems with this reconstruction?

[Erpingham]

I thought I'd find a picture of what British army tented camps looked like at the time of Maurice



Four regiments here, each in their regulation rows of bell tents.  These were designed for between 8-12 men (it varied on which mark of tent) and were 12 ft in diameter.  A little denser than 8 men per hectare, I think, though I've been unable to find the regulations on laying them out anywhere.  Other than a couple of cars, I can't see any vehicle parks (the regiment will have had wagons) or horse lines (for the officers and wagon horses).  So these would spread the camp out a bit.  On the right is an exercise field - we can assume camps Maurice knew also had these and again they would decrease the density.

I suspect Persian camps would also need some of the features we see here, like roadways and mustering spaces, even if they didn't have drill squares and exercise fields. 

[Duncan Head]

The size of the army according to many scholars ranges from about 200 000 to 500 000.

Though not all scholars would favour such high numbers: Delbrueck went as low as 25,000 at one point, apparently. One Professor Livio Catullo Stecchini has an interesting brief summary of the historiography of Xerxes' numbers.

[Justin Swanton]

I thought I'd find a picture of what British army tented camps looked like at the time of Maurice



Four regiments here, each in their regulation rows of bell tents.  These were designed for between 8-12 men (it varied on which mark of tent) and were 12 ft in diameter.  A little denser than 8 men per hectare, I think, though I've been unable to find the regulations on laying them out anywhere.  Other than a couple of cars, I can't see any vehicle parks (the regiment will have had wagons) or horse lines (for the officers and wagon horses).  So these would spread the camp out a bit.  On the right is an exercise field - we can assume camps Maurice knew also had these and again they would decrease the density.

I suspect Persian camps would also need some of the features we see here, like roadways and mustering spaces, even if they didn't have drill squares and exercise fields.

We need to keep to the rules and go with Maurice. He's the authority.

I actually made a mistake when citing him. Finding my original post he actually affirms 16 men per hectare:

He also maintains that a British force of 72 000 men with 22 000 animals camped as close together as possible and occupied an area of 20 square miles. That's 45 square kilometers or 625 square metres per man excluding the animals. Let's give the beasties 16 square metres each. That leaves 620 square metres per man.

That makes the camp of our 350 000 men 21 875 hectares in size or 218, 75 km². The camp now measures 14.8 x 14.8 km. Still a good hike to the water source.

[Justin Swanton]

The size of the army according to many scholars ranges from about 200 000 to 500 000.

Though not all scholars would favour such high numbers: Delbrueck went as low as 25,000 at one point, apparently. One Professor Livio Catullo Stecchini has an interesting brief summary of the historiography of Xerxes' numbers.

Sure, but most from what I can see accept about 200 000 men and upwards to a limit of about half a million. Wikipedia sums it up thus:

Herodotus doubles this number to account for support personnel and thus he reports that the whole army numbered 5,283,220 men.Other ancient sources give similarly large numbers. The poet Simonides, who was a near-contemporary, talks of four million; Ctesias gave 800,000 as the total number of the army that assembled in Doriskos. An early and very influential modern historian, George Grote, set the tone by expressing incredulity at the numbers given by Herodotus: "To admit this overwhelming total, or anything near to it, is obviously impossible." Grote's main objection is the supply problem, though he does not analyse the problem in detail. He did not reject Herodotus's account altogether, citing the latter's reporting of the Persians' careful methods of accounting and their stockpiling of supply caches for three years, but drew attention to the contradictions in the ancient sources. A later influential historian, J. B. Bury, calls Herodotus's numbers "wholly fabulous" and judges that the Persian land forces may have been 180,000. A major limiting factor for the size of the Persian army, first suggested by Sir Frederick Maurice (a British transport officer) is the supply of water. Maurice suggested in the region of 200,000 men and 70,000 animals could have been supported by the rivers in that region of Greece. He further suggested that Herodotus may have confused the Persian terms for chiliarchy (1,000) and myriarchy (10,000), leading to an exaggeration by a factor of ten. Other early modern scholars estimated that the land forces participating in the invasion at 100,000 soldiers or less, based on the logistical systems available to the Ancients. Munro and Macan note Herodotus giving the names of six major commanders and 29 myriarchs (leaders of a baivabaram, the basic unit of the Persian infantry, which numbered about 10,000-strong); this would give a land force of roughly 300,000 men. Other proponents of larger numbers suggest figures from 250,000 to 700,000.

[Erpingham]

Though I have no reason to dispute his summary of scholarship, we should perhaps note Stecchini was a controversial figure and not a mainstream historian of the conflict.  I was unable to find the source of his view about a "table of organisation" of the Persian army at 300,000 infantry and 50,000 cavalry with equivalent numbers of hangers on.