Ancient Logistics and ancient warfare

[Macedon]

That is incorrect. Herodutus provides chapter(s) and verse on the trireme fleet. Beginning at 7.89 and concluding at 7.100. At 7.89.1 he makes the clear statement:

The number of the triremes was twelve hundred and seven

No Michael, that number was the number of triremes that he started the expedition with. The comment was about the triremes he fought with at Salamis. From the 1207 triremes mentioned by Herodot, some 600-650 were somehow damaged or destroyed. Plus the 120 Graeco-thracian and island ships are beyond that number. So, in all, Herodot mentions 1327 triremes sailing to Thessaly. From there on, no more info is provided in absolute numbers on ships arriving as any kind of reinforcement. About Salamis, he just says that the ships should not be less than those at the beginning.

Not satisfied with having driven through his army nation by nation (one can only imagine how long that process took on the figures supplied), Xerxes did the same with the fleet (7.100.2-3):

After he had done this, the ships were drawn down and launched into the sea. Xerxes alighted from his chariot into a Sidonian ship and sat under a golden canopy while he was carried past the prows of the ships, questioning the men in the same way as the army and having the answers written down. The captains put out and anchored in line four hundred feet from the shore, with their prows turned landward and the marines armed for war; Xerxes viewed them by passing between the prows and the land.

If one allows a very conservative 15 metres to be occupied by each trireme (3.5 metres odd in beam and allowance for oars and station keeping without fouling due to breezes), Xerxes has sailed some 18 kilometres down the coast to do this.

And? Why would this be problematic?

I do believe Herodotus' numbers are wrong and, as such, cannot be considered as a practical "maximum". My view is neatly summed up by Peirre Briant - possibly the Achaeminid scholar - in the attachment below (From Cyrus to Alexander, p 527). A snippett:

[quote]For a long time, Herodotus' statistics were adjudged unacceptable, if only for purely logistical reasons [...] Other ancient authors' statements seem no more credible: from 700,000 (Isocrates) to 3,000,000 (Simonides). All share a GReek perspectivewhen they calculate the armies of Darius III; their motive is to exaggerate the glory of the Greek warriors who defeated them

Everyone agrees with this assessment...

I disagree. The main argument still is "the numbers are incredibly high because they are just too high...". Of course there are scholars who support various opinions and vastly different numbers themselves. I especially dislike the "glorifying Greeks" argument. It is very problematic and is only used to mask inability of otherwise check numbers. For some reasons, such numbers were not reported to glorify Greeks fighting against Romans, Thracians, Illyrians, Indians etc. For some reason, even the Carthaginian armies, who are also "deemed" very inflated are not that high. So, if 300,000 Carthaginians in Sicily was a "gross" attempt to glorify the Greek war against them, then why were the millions of Persians necessary? Why not saying 500,000 and be done with, a most glorious victory as well. If there is anyone you should blame for inflating the Persian numbers this someone would be the Persians themselves. Herodot writes of the numbers he learned. And these he learned from Persian sources. He is especially careful and judgmental. He all the time speaks of the problems such an army (land forces) would come before, but these are the numbers he was given. He even gives the numbering method that the Persians supposedly used to further enhance this questioning of the numbers of the land forces, as it was clearly below standards. Notice, here that such number repeatedly crop up when Persian campaigns of importance are reported by any Greek and not only directed against Greeks. This does not happen with any other people. His account of Lade is actually very informative as to how he operated. He questioned people from all Ionian sides (he doers not say who...maybe old men, maybe archives, maybe heard stories), he reports that they differ and everyone blames the other and then speaks of a stele that existed at that time as further evidence. Estimates are just estimates. And most are very wild and very simplistically supported in order to make the Persian defeat sound not only logical but even predestined, totally disregarding the sources. What is even more silly is stating that the sources are totally unreliable, trying to overglorify the Greek victory and then use them as "proof" for other assertions.

Anyways... I do of course know of these positions and arguments of course and I do know that there are many skeptics out there (me one of them) and many who deem all sources as unreliable and come up with their own theories. No problem.

Clearly (yes I like the word ) he cannot be correct in that last statement for you do not agree with such an assessment. To do a Diodorus on your position and summarise tightly...

• That it might be possible the Persian Empire could conscript 2,617,610 infantry, cavalry, archers, etc, Herodotus is not fantasising in saying that it did.
  
• The Empire might possibly levy 1,200 triremes (plus 3,000 transports) Herodotus is likely correct in that it did
  
• That the Persians had this number of triremes was not, in the end, telling because the Greeks were much better at "trireme fighting".
  

And, if all that is correct, then I must abandon my argument for there is no way to rationally argue against it. Xerxes failed in an invasion that was, on Herodotus' figures (your "maximum"), far larger than D-Day.

On other matter (diekplous, etc) I'll get back to it when time permits.

Clearly...

Yes, this summarizes my opinion. I choose to read the word "rationally" as not implying that my position is irrational, I generally deem myself as a (sometimes overly) rational person, which is the exact reason why I do not a priori accept these criticisms against Herodot and other ancient authors.

My personal estimates are that the land-forces account is inflated and Herodot hints at it all the time, although these were the numbers he found and therefore used. Personally, I would argue in favor of a force more around a million troops and about 500,000 non-combatants, maybe even a bit less (some 20%). I do not doubt the numbers given as to the Persian navy and personally think that at Salamis, they would have about 1,000 ships ready for battle (some 20% less than the initial 1,200). Of course less would have taken part in the actual battle.