Readings on population and army size?

[diegis]

Yes. But where is Strabo getting this information? Would his sources have accurate info? Would his sources be trustworthy?

Elsewhere Strabo says that the Belgae could muster 300,000 armed men, but he might be getting that number from Caesar, and Caesar is known for exaggeration. It's likely that Dacia, in Burebista's time, had more people than all of Belgica, despite having fewer soldiers in Strabo's geography.

The Romans are probably more reliable when counting their own numbers than when counting 'barbarian' numbers. The next issue is what kind of numbers are we talking about: soldiers? militia? all men able to bear arms?

I think Strabo had some good sources, as in his writings he mention for example the holy mountain of Dacians/Getae where Zalmoxis lived, and he give its name too, Kogaionon.

This is an information that is not found to other historians back then so i assume he had some sources from Dacia. Burebista used a Greek for example, as ambassador send to Pompeius (they wanted to make an alliance in which Burebista to help Pompei against Caesar, and they established the border of their states in Balkan peninsula).

Is possible that Greek engineers worked to some Dacian fortresses, and so is possible that Strabo sources to be OK (even if not excellent).

I think he said however that Burebista can raise an army of 200,000 soldiers, not that was the permanent army or was gathered all in one place. I find that number believeable, for at least a 2 million population. Maybe 20,000 or even less was a sort of permanent army scattered all over the country (garrison duties and stuff like that)

Getae/Dacians (but more or less all "barbarians") was a warlike culture, and all people was required to have weapons or such, and war was kinda a religious habit.

So 1 of every 10 people being called in the army seem to be OK. Some was too old, some was women, some was kids, some needed to work the field or take care of cattles, guard their village etc. so just 1 of 10 is the usual ratio i saw.

I think that Belgae was significantly lower, maybe 30,000 not 300,000 (or that was the entire population there, not just warriors-see the numbers of Cimbrii and Teutonii too, when they was defeated by Caius Marius), but Gauls surely can raise 250,000 warriors at a population of 5 millions let say.
Even if let say they wasnt such religiously martial like oriented as in Dacian case, or wasnt the case as in nomadic people style (let say Sarmatians), all go to war, but surely they was warlike enough and had enough people to go to war even if in a lower percent

That they wasnt all in the same time at Alesia for example, is possible, and surely Caesar exagerated with the numbers in his writings. But i find that number possible for that size of population.