Ancient Logistics and ancient warfare

[Macedon]

He must have had concerns regarding the numbers of ships. This is plain to me from his reduction of those numbers (even after adding the 120 of 7.185) prior to Artemesium. Here 600 are removed by storms thus reducing the size (on his received figures) to 727. The telling sentence is 8.13:

All this was done by the god so that the Persian power might be more equally matched with the Greek, and not much greater than it.

Note Herodotus claims that Persian numbers are now more equal to the Greeks'. "More equally" does not, to me, imply two or three to one. Interesting also is the supposed conversation after Thermopylae before Xerxes impales Leonidas' head. Here Demaratus advises sending 300 ships around the Peloponnese (7.235.1). Achaemenes disagrees noting that Persian naval superiority will be lost (236.2):

...if after the recent calamity which has wrecked four hundred of your ships you send away three hundred more from your fleet to sail round the Peloponnese, your enemies will be enough to do battle with you; while your fleet is united, however, it is invincible, and your enemies will not be so many as to be enough to fight

727 is closer to my preferred figure and far and away more preferable to 1,327. If, then, there were not less than 1,200 at Salamis, whence came the 500-600 extras in so short a time?

First you have to state what your opinion on the number is throughout the campaign. 727 might be your preferred figure but does that mean that you accept the 1,327 ships mentioned in the beginning? I think, though I am not sure, that your position is that there were something like 400-600 Persian ships from the beginning and that Herodot had to invent all disasters in order to finally reduce the "mythical" numbers to this.

8.13 commends the Gods who helped reduce the numbers of the Persian ships and does not say anything about how many ships fought or were present at Salamis. "More equally" could imply anything less than before but it is not this that is the issue. It is more the "not many more/τῷ Ἑλληνικῷ τὸ Περσικὸν μηδὲ πολλῷ πλέον εἴη" 8.13.19 part that brings the balance lower. Yet, this sentence is denoting intention, not outcome. Herodot says that this was the intention of the Gods "ὅκως ἂν ἐξισωθείη".

Achaemenes talks of the Greeks becoming ἀξιόμαχοι. This has nothing to do with equal numbers but with being "in position to fight". This would easily be a 2:1 or 1.5:1 ratio that would give the Greeks in the eyes of the Persians a chance to win. It does not talk about naval superiority in numbers.

I truly would like you to give me your hypothesis of how the numbers of the Persian fleet changed from the time they left Hellespont. My own hypothesis is that the Persians had a sea-worthy fleet of about 1,000 triremes at Salamis, with the discrepancy between initial number 1,327 and losses about 600 being explained by repaired damages rather than an unattested influx of reinforcements. This would also mean that there would be at least proportionate losses in the numbers of the Asian nations. The Phoenicians would not any more have 300 ships but more probably 200 etc. Maybe from these 1,000 another 100 would not have been battle-worthy (although they would have been sea-worthy). This would again conciliate all sources with the lack of reports of further reinforcements. Note here, that my lowering the numbers is not done because I think that a fleet of 1,300 or 1,200 ships is impossible "to muster, control or/and supply" but because Herodot does not report any reinforcements coming from Asia nor does he say anything about the Thessalians and Boeotians joining the fleet and with what numbers. I do this "rationalization" in an effort to explain Herodot in a more "detailed" way.

I guess we will never agree on the numbers. On the idea that the Greeks were much more experienced in naval warfare and better "trireme fighters" than the Phoenicians and others in the Persian navy, I'll leave that to Thucydides (1.14.1-3):

These were the most powerful navies. And even these, although so many generations had elapsed since the Trojan war, seem to have been principally composed of the old fifty-oars and long-boats, and to have counted few galleys among their ranks. Indeed it was only shortly before the Persian war and the death of Darius the successor of Cambyses, that the Sicilian tyrants and the Corcyraeans acquired any large number of galleys. For after these there were no navies of any account in Hellas till the expedition of Xerxes; Aegina, Athens, and others may have possessed a few vessels, but they were principally fifty-oars. It was quite at the end of this period that the war with Aegina and the prospect of the barbarian invasion enabled Themistocles to persuade the Athenians to build the fleet with which they fought at Salamis; and even these vessels had not complete decks

.

Those triremes which Athens built for the invasion clearly far outnumbered anything the city had possessed prior. It logically follows that the crews were, for the great part, inexperienced (indeed Cimon is reported to have urged his fellow "knights" to lay down their bridles and take to the ships - Plut Cim. 5.2-3) and many of the hoplite class will have had to row (thus the reduced fleet so Athens could send her army to Plataea). Indeed, of the eventual 180 ships Athens sent to Artemesium, more than a few were manned by the Plataeans who do not strike one as experienced "trireme fighters".

It is interesting that you use Thucydides when you talked of Herodot as a source that was quite far from the events but I will give you that what you offer initially seems to support that the Greeks were not experienced in trireme warfare.

Yet, Thucydides makes a comparison between the older times and that of the Peloponnesian War which he experienced and writes about. He tells of the first triremes dating back 3 centuries before the end of the Pel. War and accepts that the Greeks had vast experience in naval warfare, himself counting a number of "strong navies". He says that the majority of ships before the Persian Wars were smaller vessels and he indeed says that before Xerxes there were few ναυτικὰ ἀξιόλογα in Greece, navies "worth telling of", or better translated as "considerable". Now, this is a comparison between the naval actions taking place during the Pel. War and the past and has little to do with the Persian Wars per se. First, the numbers that he would consider "considerable" or strong would be those used in the Pel. War and it is a fact that no SINGLE Greek state apart from Athens at the time could boast any such fleet. Yet this does say little about how good or how many were the inconsiderable Greek state navies. 100 fleets of 10 ships still comprise a grand fleet of 1,000. The same principal was also the case among ALL nations of the Mediterranean. The Phoenicians were also fragmented and each state had its own fleet. The same applies to the Cilicians, the Cypriots and the Ionians. A single exception here were the Egyptians. The same applies to the "trireme fighting" doctrines/tactics and experience. It does not matter if mass trireme fighting, according to Thucydides, was a relatively recent fad. The Greeks still had more experience in naval warfare and had more crews and commanders trained and experienced in such kind of warfare.

As for the Athenian crews, this is not actually the case. the crews were like the army, They all trained and they all served. Having only 50 ships does not mean that only 10,000 men know how to row them or command them. They took turns and were called up for the expeditions. And still, even if some were not as well trained, (of course some would have been...) it does not mean that the average experience and training was not superior.
Of course men in the Athenian triremes would have been sent to Plataea, some would have been hoplites, others would have been sent as light infantry. This has little to do with the ability of the Athenians in trireme combat. As for the Plataeans, the comment of Herodot that they were unskilled is telling. Plataea was always very close to Athens and paid for it a huge prize afterwards. It was a very small city and even if half of all able men took to the oars, they would not be able to man a considerable number of ships (probably 2 or 3 if given full control of some triremes). Their presence was inconsiderable and Herodot's comments show that they were an exception. At Salamis, they did not take part.

It would be a good thing if you found some evidence as to the superiority or at least equality in battle-worth of the Persian allies, if this is what you claim. The probably biased Greek side gives this explanation as to why they eventually conquered. If one starts claiming that the sources are obviously prejudiced, trying to glorify the Greek side, that the Persians sailed/marched to Greece with numbers comparable to those reported for the Greeks, which could also be inflated, that the Greeks are mistakingly portrayed as superior in land and sea combat and that their victories cannot have been as grand, then one may write his own history that will only boil down to "It seems that some Persians came, they seem to have fought with some Greeks, they somehow lost and that was it...". This is not meant to be ironic. I just, in such discussions need to see what the criteria are regarding the evaluation of the specific sources and where we draw the line between useful and useless information, which is certainly a topic very few would agree on completely. If only there were multiple sources from multiple origins we could draw on.