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

[Jim Webster]

" Exclude the ox and donkey driver 

why should they be excluded?

And what do you think the women were doing, sitting painting their nails? The wives will have productive tasks as well as handling details like child rearing. If you have a family of six, only the very youngest children will not work, their work is necessary. I started driving tractors at eight. Farming families all work

I'm sorry but your figures bear no relation to reality

[Justin Swanton]

" Exclude the ox and donkey driver 

why should they be excluded?

And what do you think the women were doing, sitting painting their nails? The wives will have productive tasks as well as handling details like child rearing. If you have a family of six, only the very youngest children will not work, their work is necessary. I started driving tractors at eight. Farming families all work

I'm sorry but your figures bear no relation to reality

What I'm trying to do is establish how much labour the men were in for on a 100-iugera farm. Chuck in the women and some of the children and each man has less work to do, not more, which makes the production of surplus even easier.

One thing I have difficulty establishing is exactly how much work is involved in making a success of a 65-acre farm. From what I understand, the major heavy-labour tasks are ploughing, sowing, harvesting, threshing and winnowing. An animal-pulled plough can plough one acre in a day so your ox on the Roman farm will be pulling the plough for 60 days. I take it ploughed land can still be sown with seed 2 months later? A man can reap one half to one acre a day, so the ten labours will manage about 7 acres a day and wrap up the harvesting in 9 days. I haven't a clue how long threshing and winnowing takes. And or course there are a host of other chores to do that don't spring to mind because I'm not a farmer.

[Jim Webster]

" Exclude the ox and donkey driver 

why should they be excluded?

And what do you think the women were doing, sitting painting their nails? The wives will have productive tasks as well as handling details like child rearing. If you have a family of six, only the very youngest children will not work, their work is necessary. I started driving tractors at eight. Farming families all work

I'm sorry but your figures bear no relation to reality

What I'm trying to do is establish how much labour the men were in for on a 100-iugera farm. Chuck in the women and some of the children and each man has less work to do, not more, which makes the production of surplus even easier.

What you forget is that the women and children are already factored into the labour force. If you have 10 men, 10 women and 20 children over 10, the labour force isn't ten men.
The labour force is probably in the region of 25 'labour units' which men counting as a nominal 1 each, and the women, with other responsibilities coming in about 0.7 and the children also build into the equation

[Jim Webster]

One thing I have difficulty establishing is exactly how much work is involved in making a success of a 65-acre farm. From what I understand, the major heavy-labour tasks are ploughing, sowing, harvesting, threshing and winnowing. An animal-pulled plough can plough one acre in a day so your ox on the Roman farm will be pulling the plough for 60 days. I take it ploughed land can still be sown with seed 2 months later? A man can reap one half to one acre a day, so the ten labours will manage about 7 acres a day and wrap up the harvesting in 9 days. I haven't a clue how long threshing and winnowing takes. And or course there are a host of other chores to do that don't spring to mind because I'm not a farmer.

Seriously it depends on the land, some was ploughed two or three times, once to just get rid of the weeds and stop water loss. Also the ox won't merely just plough, it'll be used as a general beast of burden with a cart, hauling manure, hay and everything else that needs shifting.
Whilst a man can reap a certain area a day, he does so as part of a team. He'll use the sickle or scythe, but he'll be followed by somebody else who gathers (often his wife) and ties the sheaves and then depending on the climate there might be a team with the ox loading sheaves into a cart. You might have ten men harvesting, but you're actually deploying twenty or more labour units, and that's without the gleaners

Also if you've got 65 acres, you haven't got sixty acres of grain. You cannot grow continuous cereals (except in Egypt which is different because there you effectively rotate the soil rather than the crop) so between a third and a half of your ground might be fallow. It might provide a little grazing for your donkey and oxen but it's not doing a lot. But it'll be ploughed a couple of times when it's fallow to plough in the weeds and conserve water

[Justin Swanton]

The best source for all this is Palladius agricultural manual (I used it when writing my novel on Roman Gaul). Must take some time to go through it again.

[Jim Webster]

The best source for all this is Palladius agricultural manual (I used it when writing my novel on Roman Gaul). Must take some time to go through it again.

Palladius is good, but he's surprisingly late but borrows and he apparently had experience in Sardinia and Italy as well as probably Gaul

[Patrick Waterson]

You did read the argument further on, didn't you?  The one about a cultural artefact of the "barbarian horde" and how it affected the reporting of numbers?

If that is not imposing our preconceptions upon the past, I do not know what is.

No more so than treating (selected) ancient authors with almost religious reverence.  For the umpteenth time, we are all imposing models of interpretation on the past, from Herodotus to us here now.  Personally, I think the interpretive framework I'm offering, based on a critical approach, will get us near the truth.

The essential question being which imposition gets us nearer what actually happened.  I am unconvinced that an 'interpretative framework' has anything to offer beyond an expression of preconceptions.

2. I believe you said he spoke to Persian officials?  He's believe them because they fed his cultural expectation.

Now why would they even think of doing that?

Are you seriously asking this?  You have proposed that overawing the enemy with a display of strength is the Persian way.  The power and glory of the Persian empire etc.  Herodotus expects big numbers.  Persian officials expect to elaborate to glorify the King.

I would suggest otherwise.  By the time Herodotus was collecting information, the King had been well and truly defeated, and inflating numbers would have an effect quite the opposite of glorifying him.

Then why ask?   As it happens, no, they do not - apart from Ctesias, who asserts that Xerxes had 800,000 but gives no basis for how he or his presumed source arrives at this figure.  800,000 is about half of 1,700,000 so my suspicion is that Ctesias took the figure he received from his source and halved it thinking it would have included noncombatants.  Conjectural, albeit it makes for easy reconciliation.  What does stand out is that even Ctesias does not hold with 200,000 or so, but a rather larger number.

So, despite being a member of the Persian Court, Ctesias has his figures wrong?  Other than Simonides, who does give similar figures to Herodotus? 

Being a member of a court does not necessarily make a physician into a historian.

[Justin Swanton]

The best source for all this is Palladius agricultural manual (I used it when writing my novel on Roman Gaul). Must take some time to go through it again.

Palladius is good, but he's surprisingly late but borrows and he apparently had experience in Sardinia and Italy as well as probably Gaul

A shortcut to ascertaining how much surplus a Roman farm or agricultural estate could produce is to see how much the tributum soli, or Roman land tax, took from the crop. According to second-century land-surveyor Hyginus Gromaticus: 'In some provinces they pay a part of the crop, in some a fifth, in others a seventh; in still others a money payment. The amount is assesse  by a valuation of the land itself. Set values are  established for types of land, as in Pannonia, where the categories are: first- and second-class arable; meadow-land; first- and second-class woodland; fruit-bearing trees and pasture. For all these different land types a rate is established on a per iugerum basis according to its productiveness.' - De  limitibus

A fifth is 20%, a seventh 14,3%. This represents the Roman administration's assessment of the surplus (or part of it) available after the needs of the inhabitants of the land had been met. Since the tax was paid, one can assume that the assessment was accurate.

So, on average, a farm of that time could produce rather more than 17% of what was needed by those who cultivated it. Working on the assumption that 90% of the Persian population worked the land, this means that the farmers could produce, in 4 years, a surplus enough for 30% of the population for one year (over and above the 10% annual surplus necessary to feed the cities). Assuming that 5 million males - 10% of the population or 41% of the labour force, go off on a 2 year-campaign, this surplus will feed them and allow for a drop in grain production 10% for the year following that. This means the remaining active men (59%) helped by their women and children will need to work harder to grow at least 90% of the normal harvest, but nothing superhuman is required.

This all assumes that the Persian agricultural economy was not especially geared for war: i.e. with extra land lying fallow, ready to be cultivated to boost crop production in the years before the campaign.

[Jim Webster]

The best source for all this is Palladius agricultural manual (I used it when writing my novel on Roman Gaul). Must take some time to go through it again.

Palladius is good, but he's surprisingly late but borrows and he apparently had experience in Sardinia and Italy as well as probably Gaul

A shortcut to ascertaining how much surplus a Roman farm or agricultural estate could produce is to see how much the tributum soli, or Roman land tax, took from the crop. According to second-century land-surveyor Hyginus Gromaticus: 'In some provinces they pay a part of the crop, in some a fifth, in others a seventh; in still others a money payment. The amount is assesse  by a valuation of the land itself. Set values are  established for types of land, as in Pannonia, where the categories are: first- and second-class arable; meadow-land; first- and second-class woodland; fruit-bearing trees and pasture. For all these different land types a rate is established on a per iugerum basis according to its productiveness.' - De  limitibus

A fifth is 20%, a seventh 14,3%. This represents the Roman administration's assessment of the surplus (or part of it) available after the needs of the inhabitants of the land had been met. Since the tax was paid, one can assume that the assessment was accurate.

So, on average, a farm of that time could produce rather more than 17% of what was needed by those who cultivated it. Working on the assumption that 90% of the Persian population worked the land, this means that the farmers could produce, in 4 years, a surplus enough for 30% of the population for one year

again, it's not surplus. It's the states taxable income. It's already spent. To claim that a fifth of the produce of a farm was surplus and could be dedicated to a new project would be on a par with claiming that because the modern state takes 20% of income as income tax, all that money can now be dedicated to paying for some new project such as, for example mounting an invasion of Greece. The state has in reality 'spent' the money before it's ever collected.

[Jim Webster]

This all assumes that the Persian agricultural economy was not especially geared for war: i.e. with extra land lying fallow, ready to be cultivated to boost crop production in the years before the campaign.

Given that there is no evidence of this land whatsoever (nor any evidence that any state ever practiced this policy) I think we can discount it.
As far as I can tell ancient states seem to have encouraged the farming of every acre, because that maximized their tax income

[Jim Webster]

Being a member of a court does not necessarily make a physician into a historian.

Indeed, but it does give you unparalleled advantages with who you get to talk to. And Herodotus's degree was hardly from a prestigious institution 

[Patrick Waterson]

again, it's not surplus. It's the states taxable income. It's already spent.

It was not 'spent'.  The Achaemenid monarchs stocked up money and resources the way a squirrel does nuts.

To claim that a fifth of the produce of a farm was surplus and could be dedicated to a new project would be on a par with claiming that because the modern state takes 20% of income as income tax, all that money can now be dedicated to paying for some new project such as, for example mounting an invasion of Greece. The state has in reality 'spent' the money before it's ever collected.

Sorry, but this is imposing the 20th/21st century on the past with a venegeance.  The Achamenids saved what they acquired; they did not run deficit spending the way modern governments do.  In fact, they did not run deficit spending at all.  They stocked up their surpluses until they needed them - and they stocked up in anticipation of just such a need.  Look at the amount of money Alexander found at Susa when he arrived there and that should give you an idea of the Achaemenid mentality and modus operandi.

That the tax was over and above what the Achaemenid Empire needed to spend is indicated by Herodotus I.192:

"I shall show how great the power of Babylon is by many other means, but particularly by this. All the land that the great King rules is parcelled out to provision him and his army, and pays tribute besides [parex tou phorou = in addition to that which is brought in by way of payment]: now the territory of Babylon feeds him for four of the twelve months in the year, the whole of the rest of Asia providing for the other eight."

As far as I can tell ancient states seem to have encouraged the farming of every acre, because that maximized their tax income

This is pretty much my impression, and would help to explain how they produced continual surpluses.  Practices may have varied by region: Egypt, for example, was refreshed every year by the Nile so leaving any land fallow there was a waste of opportunity.  The more peripheral hilly regions might have exchanged growing land and pasture every so often (I do not know).  Judaea presumably left the land fallow every seven years.  Babylonia was presumably still yielding two-hundred-fold as per Herodotus I.193.

Being a member of a court does not necessarily make a physician into a historian.

Indeed, but it does give you unparalleled advantages with who you get to talk to. And Herodotus's degree was hardly from a prestigious institution 

Ah, if only academic advancement infallibly equated to truth ... 

[Jim Webster]

Sorry, but this is imposing the 20th/21st century on the past with a venegeance.  The Achamenids saved what they acquired; they did not run deficit spending the way modern governments do.  In fact, they did not run deficit spending at all.  They stocked up their surpluses until they needed them - and they stocked up in anticipation of just such a need.  Look at the amount of money Alexander found at Susa when he arrived there and that should give you an idea of the Achaemenid mentality and modus operandi.

yes, money. Not grain
Funny that given that apparently they could store grain for years, so why weren't there millions of amphorae stuffed with grain? 
So what happened to the grain that was how people paid their tax?
It was sold. Normally by the farmer who produced it, to his usual customers who ate it.
Then he would give the money to the tax collector.
This isn't surplus grain. it was grain grown to be eaten. The state decided that after selling his grain the farmer had surplus income and demanded their cut. But there wasn't any surplus grain

[Jim Webster]

Ah, if only academic advancement infallibly equated to truth ... 

I was merely pointing out that it seemed to be assumed by some that bumming around the eastern med gave a chap a better insight into Persian history than working as a doctor in the Persian court

[Jim Webster]

As far as I can tell ancient states seem to have encouraged the farming of every acre, because that maximized their tax income

This is pretty much my impression, and would help to explain how they produced continual surpluses.   

for gods sake what surpluses!
We'd know about surpluses if they happened because it would lead to a collapse in agriculture. Please please read something which discusses the ancient grain market because now you're just making yourself look silly.

It's a simple as this.
If you produce food you turn up to the market to sell it. When the market is in balance everybody sort of knows the price.
But when there's a genuine surplus with more grain to sell than people want to buy, the price plummets. The seller needs cash, he's got his grain at home to feed his family but he needs the silver to pay his tax bill etc.
So the price falls and basically keeps falling.
Nobody bothers buying it, just buy enough for today because it'll be cheaper tomorrow.
There's no point in buying it for an investment, because the returns would be too low and wouldn't come for over a year, and next year where might be another surplus.
So you and now trying to sell year old grain onto a market that isn't willing to pay a lot for this years grain.

So that is why agriculture doesn't try to produce a surplus. You'll get minor structural surpluses and deficits anyway just because you're dealing with a biological system and weather happens.

It is a very old saying that farmers go bankrupt in times of plenty and make money in times of famine