Ancient army numbers

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Nikos,

Above I saw someone comparing Napoleontian armies to Persian implying the former were any vastly more advanced in logistic terms. Well that is far from being the case. The truth is (and ask any 19th warfare specialist) that the fastest moving land-based infantry western European army in 18th-19th century prior to the advent of railroad was that of Marlborough who mastered a very satisfying 25km per day.

You missed the point about Napoleon. It’s not the speed of the advance that’s being compared here, but the logistics. Your points about the road network are well-taken, which is why I think that comparing Napoleon’s Russian invasion to Xerxes in Greece.

what is more funny is that in terms of warfare ancient armies would simply slaughter with particular ease the Napoleontian armies given that they only had to outrun the 150m distance (1 minute), lose by bullets say a 25-30% of their force and then enjoy the party slaughtering the totality of the opposing Napoleontian force in 4-5 minutes

Totally OT of course, but you’re dead wrong. There would have been artillery first, a constant rate of fire and fearsome cavalry which could keep their distance and still use firearms. I mean – how on earth do you suppose that colonial armies conquered all those natives (Moghuls, Mamluks, Chinese, not to mention all African, Asian and American tribes) if ALL they had to do was run towards those silly men with guns???? hock: hock: hock:

but of course here our interest is logistics. So no, there is nothing particularly more evolved to logistics of Napoleontian era than that of the classical era - and one would note the absence of instant messaging via fire-signaling stations in mountains across Europe which was the case in Greece (and I guess most probably in Persia).

Nothing except the way society was organized by the early 19th c. Or how horse-drawn transport had evolved. Or agriculture (needed for supplies in enemy territory).

If Napoleon could get more than 500,000 men to travel to cold Moscow, Persians could send 3 times that number during summertime in Greece. A 400,000 minimum fighting force backed by 2-3 times this numbers in overall logistics (i.e. not just accompagning logistics but local-support logistics) should be seen as something very casual even if extraordinary in frequency and impressive to everyone. All it took was to have the financial support and the means and Persians had plenty of both, 10 times more than Napoleon.

Again you missed the point. Napoleon couldn’t. His failing logistics meant he lost more than 50% of his 600.000 strong army before he even reached Moscow. Which is exactly the point where we must ask how on earth Xerxes 9with a lot less means) would have been able to organise such a feat.

As for the feasibility of supply lines - the mere paradigm of relatively small ships at 50tn carrying wheat whose every kilo more than suffices to cover the needs of 2 men for a day mean that it would suffice 1 ship arrival per day to bring in the daily allowance for 100,000 soldiers. Just 1 small ship per day!!!

Pure theory. WHERE would it land? Did the captain use his iPhone to call the high command :wink: and ask where these troops were? Nice if there had been prearranged points, but the army could hardly wait for that ship and sit still if it was delayed – and how would a captain locate the army on the move?