02-12-2012, 03:09 AM
Quote: The 100,000 men fighting on the Greek side at Plataea and the as many men serving as crews for the fleet are not at all improbable and Xerxes should be able to field much more than that.The Greeks were close to home and could raise large numbers far more easily than the Persians. Sure, the Persians had a far larger empire to raise soldiers from, but their borders could of could not remain unprotected. Therefore, an expeditionary army of more than a 100.000 would be possible (considering that Darius III mamanged to put 300.000 men in the field at Gaugamela, I think?) but I doubt that it would have been much larger. I don't think the Persians meant to destroy all of Greece and leave a wasteland.
[..]
What I am certain of is a tendency to give very low numbers as global and local populations in ancient times which might be a reason why big numbers (whatever "big" might mean) sound improbable at first sight...
If you look at the losses of the Grande Armee of Napoleon during the summer of 1812 (the winter losses were quite another matter), we can't expect armies of this size to travel such distances without a proper logistical system and not expect dreadful losses. Smaller armies (and I think that, say, 60.000 would still be a fairly large force), would stand a much better cjance of remaining intact.
How large were the largest Roman expeditionary armies?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
