05-22-2005, 04:30 PM
I see a "3:1" ratio has been brought up as a force needed to expect success. This is not the size of the total forces.
I didn't say it was. If you remember, I merely used this as a rough guide for arriving at some idea of what MIGHT be considered unbeatable odds.
It is a measure of the superior odds needed to attack successfully at a single point.
In the context of my argument, this is not relevant. I'm familiar with the theory of "local superiority".
Even then, it assumes the forces are comparable (in troop quality, gear, and without major advantage in terrain or fortification).
As I said.
A simple calculation, by the way, on the length of Xerxes' army. Five million people, say each man or woman takes up 2 feet of a marching column, say they are 10 abreast - 5,000,000 x 2 /10 = 1,000,000 feet long. In miles (divide by 5280), this column is 189 miles long. This assumes perfect spacing and coordination of the march, no horses, no carts/wagons for baggage. For most armies, 20 miles a day was a good march - this column would take 10 days to march past a single point / bridge.
The numbers of Herodotus don't work. Even one-tenth the numbers strain credulity.[/quote]
Okay, but in my message, I'd already assumed that 5 million was wrong, and was trying to establish how wrong. Did you read the whole message? I think I asked whether people thought 300,000 to 500, 000 MIGHT be a possibility. Your references to Napoleon seem to suggest that you agree that they might. I see Stefanos has commented on Napoleon's Russian campaign already - I was about to write the same thing.
I didn't say it was. If you remember, I merely used this as a rough guide for arriving at some idea of what MIGHT be considered unbeatable odds.
It is a measure of the superior odds needed to attack successfully at a single point.
In the context of my argument, this is not relevant. I'm familiar with the theory of "local superiority".
Even then, it assumes the forces are comparable (in troop quality, gear, and without major advantage in terrain or fortification).
As I said.
A simple calculation, by the way, on the length of Xerxes' army. Five million people, say each man or woman takes up 2 feet of a marching column, say they are 10 abreast - 5,000,000 x 2 /10 = 1,000,000 feet long. In miles (divide by 5280), this column is 189 miles long. This assumes perfect spacing and coordination of the march, no horses, no carts/wagons for baggage. For most armies, 20 miles a day was a good march - this column would take 10 days to march past a single point / bridge.
The numbers of Herodotus don't work. Even one-tenth the numbers strain credulity.[/quote]
Okay, but in my message, I'd already assumed that 5 million was wrong, and was trying to establish how wrong. Did you read the whole message? I think I asked whether people thought 300,000 to 500, 000 MIGHT be a possibility. Your references to Napoleon seem to suggest that you agree that they might. I see Stefanos has commented on Napoleon's Russian campaign already - I was about to write the same thing.
