Readings on population and army size?

[Marja]

What readings would you suggest on population and army size in the ancient and medieval world, especially the ancient Mediterranean?

I'm actually most interested in population and army size for Roman-Age 'barbarians' of central and eastern Europe. But I suspect that more reliable statistics are available for the Mediterranean, and these can be cross-compared. I'd tried working from late imperial Roman army sizes, and middle Republican Roman ones [which posed too many interpretive problems, because the institutions didn't match up, and the sources had multiple interpretations] so more and better sources would help.

I can't afford a copy of Brunt's Italian Manpower, though, and the institutions wouldn't match up.

[Alanus]

Hello, Marja

Like you, I'm also interested in the actual populations of various "barbarian" cultures. (I prefer the term "culture" as opposed to "ethnic groups.") :wink:

I have not found a study of these various populations, yet they must have been substantial. Estimates of Alaric's army, for instance, have guessed it at 40,000. If you add the huge number of women, children, and the aged, included in his long migrations, that number may have equalled close to a quarter million. I have always been impressed by this estimate, so oft overlooked; and perhaps this overwhelming number of dependents was one of the reasons that must have worn out the man and probably aided in his premature death. We hear about his demands for silks, furs, and pepper, yet modern historians fail to grasp the significance-- These "luxuries" were then bartered-off to feed his Gothic refugees.

We have numbers for the recruitments of Theodosius and Gratian, 30,000 Goths and 40,000 Alans respectively. Add to this the actual population, and again we find high numbers. It's amazing that so many "barbarians" entered Western Europe yet disappeared into the melding population within two or three centuries. :unsure:

[D B Campbell]

What readings would you suggest on population and army size in the ancient and medieval world, especially the ancient Mediterranean?

For ancient demographics, Walter Scheidel is your man, Marja.

[MD]

Many papers by him about Roman demography can also be found among the freely accessible Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics.

[Marja]

Indeed, they are very helpful. But I'm interested in work relating population to total army size.

For example, this is an attempt to estimate the minimum number of citizens from a given number of hoplite soldiers:

http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/view/12821

However, I'm more interested in the 'typical' number of people [citizens, non-citizens, subjects, slaves, etc.] for a given number of soldiers and vice-versa.

[Sean Manning]

What readings would you suggest on population and army size in the ancient and medieval world, especially the ancient Mediterranean?

For ancient demographics, Walter Scheidel is your man, Marja.

I would say that he is necessary but not sufficient. Scheidel is one of the most eloquent and learned exponents of the "low count" but that theory has suffered some very serious blows recently. Because Roman demographics are in such a flux, I would recommend that someone new to the field start out with at least one "high counter" such as Kron and one "low counter" such as Scheidel.

Nathan Rosenstein and Anthony Spalinger have some things in their books on Middle Republican Rome and New Kingdom Egypt respectively. There is also a lot of data available for Classical Athens and Boeoetia; for methodology see Hansen's The Shotgun Method and (if you can read Deutsch) Beloch's book from the 1880s. Neither is focused on military participation ratio.

[Marja]

How about Hin and her middle count?

For regional populations, I'm tempted to fall back on Beloch. He's definitely on the low-count end of the scale, but if he's too low, he's probably more-or-less correct about the proportions, although iirc Russell argues for higher populations for Asia Minor.

For military participation figures, I guess I have to rely on different periods of Roman history, as opposed to a wider Mediterranean basis.

[M. Demetrius]

For military participation figures, I guess I have to rely on different periods of Roman history, as opposed to a wider Mediterranean basis.

This sounds right, since Rome had one of the few professional, standing armies of that day, they would likely have had a disproportionately sized military.

[Eleatic Guest]

Scheidel is one of the most eloquent and learned exponents of the "low count" but that theory has suffered some very serious blows recently. Because Roman demographics are in such a flux, I would recommend that someone new to the field start out with at least one "high counter" such as Kron and one "low counter" such as Scheidel.

What serious blows and what paper of Kron are you referring to? I need to refresh my knowledge in this field. The economic implications of demographics are huge. A Roman Empire with 100 MB people would be a very different beast from one with 'only' half the population.

[Marja]

M. Demetrius,

I was hoping to be able to compare different societies. So using different stages in Roman history is less than ideal.

But at the absolute minimum, to test relationships between population, social structure, and army size, we would need reliable measures of army size, and some measures of population which aren't calculated from army size.

[Eleatic Guest]

I remember Mommsen writing scornfully in his Römische Geschichte about Caesar's conquest of Gaul that a "nation" of 5 million people with 1 million men capable of bearing arms could not repel an offensive of an army of just 50.000 men - because of disunity and disorganization.

[Sean Manning]

Eleactic Guest: I will need a few days to reply. Right now the work I am being paid for is on the revolt of Cyrus the Younger.

How about Hin and her middle count?

I just read her article and have not assimilated it (she does not define some terms or quote some key primary sources so its a difficult paper to follow). I think that right now, the High Counters have the best of it, but I recommend that anyone new to the field read both views (and where possible avoid committing to either) because there is no agreement amongst experts.

Note that, as Hansen points out, Beloch later declared that his population estimates had been minima and at least the Greek figures should be increased by at least 20% (see K.J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte (Berlin & Leipzig: VWV Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1922) Vol. 3 p. 308, 309 note 1)

[Marja]

The Galli weren't a single people, although Caesar simplifies things for his narrative. Caesar describes two relatively small aristocracies, one military, one priestly, dominating the rest of the people. Caesar also describes huge field armies. I find it hard to reconcile large armies, let alone huge ones, with small warrior aristocracies, and I'd rather not rely on his accounts for these things.

Beloch estimates 3.4 million people in the 3 Galliae, but I'm not sure how much of his estimate depends on Caesar and how much can be relied on.

[Simplex]

And even Plutarch claims ((The life of ] Caesar 15,5 - in English here:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro...r*.html#15) that
G.J.Caesar had a million Gallians slayn and another million taken prisoner/enslaved. So Beloch seems to be more near that figure than Mommsen -- at first glance. Now if we take into account
victims of hunder and plague we are coming nearer to Mommsen, I'd think.
Original text (!?):
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...08.01.0130

Greez & Good Night

Simplex

[Marja]

I have one of Lo Cascio's articles. I'm not convinced one way or the other, but it would help if I could find separate high-count population estimates for peninsular Italia proper and for Gallia Cisalpina.