The Immortals

[Sean Manning]

I'm not sure if we can assume Herodotus is wrong when he mentions Persian infantry so often. He frequently made a distinction between Persians, Medes, Saka, and other “barbarianâ€

[Sean Manning]

I don't see that. If you reject Herodotos, it's not the number that goes away, it's simply the idea that they were always kept up to that exact strength: they're not called Immortals (in his version) because there were 10,000 of them but because there were always 10,000. The story would work just as well if they were always 5,000, or 1,000.

.

Always a pleasure to read you. I agree, the name can be a mistranslation, but originated from the actual number. 10.000 appears associated to the "doruphoroi" and "melophoroi" aroun the King in many greco-latin passages.

For example, this text from the lost Persica from Heraclides of Cyme (I take Pierre Briant's translation):

"These formed his bodyguard (doruphoroi), and all of them were persians by birth, having on the butt of their spears golden apples, and numbering a thousand, selected because of their rank from the 10.000 persians who are called Immortals" (in Athenaeus, XII 514c)

Sadly, we haven't the term 10.000 attested in the Elamite foundation tablets (Sekunda's *baivarabam is speculative), but we have records for 10 and 100... it shows a decimal organisation.

regards

We also have the Old Persian word for a unit of 1,000 thanks to the thousand-man royal guard, don't we? And armies with decimal organization tend to go up to units of 10,000 (eg. Mongol armies did). Units of 1,000 are a bit too small to organize a major army out of, and armies of 100,000 men in one place are extremely rare before the Napoleonic period, but 10,000 is more convenient for administration.

There are 15,000 Companions in one of Q. Curtius Rufus' accounts of Darius III's army before Issos, I think. (Does anyone know of an article that tries to make sense of his three different accounts of that army?)

[Aryaman2]

Units of 1,000 are a bit too small to organize a major army out of, and armies of 100,000 men in one place are extremely rare before the Napoleonic period, but 10,000 is more convenient for administration.

I don´t know where did you get that idea, in fact armies up to the Napoleonic period were based on the c.800 strong battalion. 1.000 is the maximum reasonable size for a tactical unit, units larger than that would be arranged of subunits for a battle operational command or be administrative units.
I always treat large figures for ancient armies with scepticism, I am now reading a book on the Austro-Prussian war of 1866 by Geoffrey Wawro, and reading the enormous logistical difficulties they faced to move armies 0f a quarted million through Germany with the support of a rail network, I am confirmed in my scepticism.

[hoplite14gr]

Just because the High King could afford to maintain 10000 standing guards, it doesn't mean that the full complement would follow him on campaign.
Some would stay to guard the palace, the treasury and the Royal Estate.

@Vishtaspa
Yes Herodotus tris to point out that the Greek army at this point might have been disorderly.
And the contrast is that Amomfaretos (he had refused to abndon the taxis remeber?) formed men were moving towards those who were unformed.

Kind regards

[Vishtaspa]

We also have the Old Persian word for a unit of 1,000 thanks to the thousand-man royal guard, don't we?

Not entirely until sassanid period, when we have attested in iranian languages the reconstructed old persian*hazarapatish "commander of thousand". But it is very probable that this term does exist in achaemenid period.

@Stefanos
Agree, so we have an unorganized marching greek army and (in Aeschilus case) organized (but barbarian) persian armies, not forming taxeis or phallanges in greek eyes, but "barbarian" formations.

Regards

[hoplite14gr]

Yes Inyigo.
I would further clarify that to the drilled Greek hoplites the majority of the Persian army would appeared undrilled. Though the Persian army had better trained units it seem that their number was small compared to the rest of the whole force. And it would be to the Kings interests that the subjects ideally
would be inferior to his own troops.
In Platea position change was done in the night hours and even today these actions bring confusion so the Greeks would be in a haphazard situation.

Asxylos fought in the Median wars and though he writes poetry he is an eye witness.

Kind regards

[Sean Manning]

Units of 1,000 are a bit too small to organize a major army out of, and armies of 100,000 men in one place are extremely rare before the Napoleonic period, but 10,000 is more convenient for administration.

I don´t know where did you get that idea, in fact armies up to the Napoleonic period were based on the c.800 strong battalion. 1.000 is the maximum reasonable size for a tactical unit, units larger than that would be arranged of subunits for a battle operational command or be administrative units.

Basing army organization on battalions of 1,000 had problems: organizing a big army out of battalions was a hassle and had to be started from scratch every time you raised it. That was why the idea of permanent divisions and then corps was revolutionary. And I wouldn't be surprised if these Persian divisions of 10,000 were mainly administrative units, although they could have had a battlefield role. Building-block units of several thousand for large armies are well attested eg. the Roman legion, the 4,000 man units of a Hellenistic phalanx, the 16th century Spanish tercio.

Diodorus' army strengths in that area of his History look plausible IIRC, especially if you interpret those ten thousand Persians as "a division with a paper strength of 10,000." Eumenes had been Alexander's secretary, and Diodorus' source was probably Eumenes' secretary: they knew logistics and the strength of the regular parts of their own army.

[Artabanos]

@Sean Manning

[quote]I'm not sure if we can assume Herodotus is wrong when he mentions Persian infantry so often. He frequently made a distinction between Persians, Medes, Saka, and other “barbarianâ€

[Aryaman2]

Basing army organization on battalions of 1,000 had problems: organizing a big army out of battalions was a hassle and had to be started from scratch every time you raised it. That was why the idea of permanent divisions and then corps was revolutionary. And I wouldn't be surprised if these Persian divisions of 10,000 were mainly administrative units, although they could have had a battlefield role. Building-block units of several thousand for large armies are well attested eg. the Roman legion, the 4,000 man units of a Hellenistic phalanx, the 16th century Spanish tercio.

Diodorus' army strengths in that area of his History look plausible IIRC, especially if you interpret those ten thousand Persians as "a division with a paper strength of 10,000." Eumenes had been Alexander's secretary, and Diodorus' source was probably Eumenes' secretary: they knew logistics and the strength of the regular parts of their own army.

"Permanent" divisions were not implemented until mid XIX century, even Napoleonic divisions were not still permanent, but arranged from existing brigades for a given campaign/period. The only permanent unit was the Battalion as tactical unit and the Regiment as administrative unit, with the Brigade beguining to be the next permanent tactical unit with the increase in the size of armies at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Before that armies were in fact organized out of independent Battalions grouped in provisional Brigades, from the mid XVII century to the end of the XVIII century.
Before that, Spanish Tercios were not tactical units, they were administrative units. The tactical unit in the XVI century was the company, grouped in larger units variously called (in the Spanish army escuadrones).
As for the Legion, the manipular legion is really an army corps, formed of different arms, not a unit. The Marian legion is an administrative unit sometimes used also as tactical unit, and it is the closest to what you are looking for, however it has to be remembered that the cohors was the basic tactical unit. In the Late Empire we see the use again of tactical units with a range of 500-1.000 men.
So, to sum up, to keep large tactical units operational, you need a very complex military system, a Marian legion or a Napoleonic Brigade, not to mention a permanent division with its complement of artillery, cavalry and light infantry, required a degree of evolution clearly out of the reach of the Aquemenid Empire

[hoplite14gr]

I belive that yo need some sort of military complexity and ogranization to maintain a vast empire. If the Persians did not made something original theyt had the experience of the former Assyrian and Babyloninas before them.

Kind regards

[Aryaman2]

I belive that yo need some sort of military complexity and ogranization to maintain a vast empire. If the Persians did not made something original theyt had the experience of the former Assyrian and Babyloninas before them.

Kind regards

Some sort, but what sort? The Spanish Empire in the 16th century encompassed huge distances, however it had no permanent units above the administrative level of Tercio (1.500 to 3.000 men) and tactically not above the company (150 strong). A vast empire does not necessarily requires large permanent army units, it depends on the military technology and organization.

[Sean Manning]

I'll stop here since the debate is getting into areas I'm not qualified to comment on and since I am busy with classes. Do you agree that most ancient armies had administrative units of thousands of men and that an administrative unit as large as 10,000 is not impossible, Aryaman?

For what its worth, I'm pretty sure tercios were used as a tactical formation (those pike squares with square 'sleeves' of shot you see in Renaissance art) but I'm not properly educated in warfare after 1450.

Its hard to compare a Roman legion to any modern unit, but even in Polybius' day they were more like a division (focused on one troop type [heavy infantry] with enough of other arms [equites et velites] to support it) than a corps (a small army).

[Aryaman2]

I'll stop here since the debate is getting into areas I'm not qualified to comment on and since I am busy with classes. Do you agree that most ancient armies had administrative units of thousands of men and that an administrative unit as large as 10,000 is not impossible, Aryaman?

For what its worth, I'm pretty sure tercios were used as a tactical formation (those pike squares with square 'sleeves' of shot you see in Renaissance art) but I'm not properly educated in warfare after 1450.

Its hard to compare a Roman legion to any modern unit, but even in Polybius' day they were more like a division (focused on one troop type [heavy infantry] with enough of other arms [equites et velites] to support it) than a corps (a small army).

Impossible is nothing, says the ad, however IMO it is higly unlikely.
The squares you see in those representations are not tercios, they are escuadrones (if Spanish) or tertias in most other armies. They are combat formations made up of companies taken from different units, not permenent units.
As for the the Polybian Roman Legion being a division, rather than a corps, well the problem is that probably we don´t have an intermediate unit, so a division is as valid as a corps.

[Ceannt]

Very cool

[Paralus]

[Diodorus' army strengths in that area of his History look plausible IIRC, especially if you interpret those ten thousand Persians as "a division with a paper strength of 10,000." Eumenes had been Alexander's secretary, and Diodorus' source was probably Eumenes' secretary: they knew logistics and the strength of the regular parts of their own army.

Sean is on the right track with his line of argument here. Diodorus' source here is Hieronymus who took part in this campaign on the side of Eumenes. He later took service under Antigonus.

Firstly, the Helleno-centric view of the Persian army is to be viewed with caution. Xenophon’s Cyropaedia is often a fictionalised account of history. If one were to take the lexicon of Greek writing on the Achaemenid Empire and, more importantly – its military forces – at face value, one would need to seriously question how the Persians ever came to conquer an empire at all. The Helleno-centric argument is, well, they only beat Asians, they couldn’t beat Greek hoplites. All of which begs the question of the conquest of the Ionian Greeks.

Much of this is wrapped in the usual confectionary of Greeks defeating thoroughly ridiculous numbers of Persians (such as Alexander at Issus and Gaugamela). That the Persians conquered the old kingdoms of the east (Media, Babylonia and the trans-Euphrates) as well as Bactria in the time of Cyrus without effective infantry is not likely. Nor is it possible that a “small numberâ€