Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles

[Aryaman2]

1) Ok, for logistic purposses according to you they were more accustomed to privation (instead of tougher) so they would consume less, is that what you think really?
2) Well, if you don´t discard Herodotus numbers, then you can believe anything, as they are probably among the most inflated figures in any time. You have then no reason to deny any wild claim, but just out of curiosity, then when sources quote wildly different numbers, what are you going to believe?

[hoplite14gr]

Since number have been discussed before look on this example.
Before the democratic reforms for 505 B.C. 4 major warrior fraternities existed in Athens.
The Alkmeonide clan had more than 700 families (Androkides "Peri Mystirion") Tha other contesting clans Medontidae, Paionidae and Melanthidae must have about the same number. That makes roughly 4500 hoplites.
The democratic reforms and the 2000 kliroi of conquered Chalikis raise the number to the 10000 hoplites mentioned by Herodotus.
So at least a 50000 army or more would be needed against them in the 1st expedition in 490 B.C.
The excavated remains of the "Neosoikoi" (ships-homes) in Piraeus revealed a complex capable of supporitng 400 triremms
That is only the Athenians.
Xerxes who was aware of the Korinthos convention and the desision of Athens and Sparta to form a league that drew a mumber of important cities and uncertain about the wilingness of the city states considering to ally with him, must have estimated the 100000 fighting men that appeared finally in Platea if not more.
How many men must you mobilize to overcome 100.000?
Kind regards

[Felix]

It is a scientific fact that a healthy man needs at least 3 lbs of wheat or the equivalent a day when doing heavy labour. If he gets less than this, than he slowly starves. Historical precedents support this.

This makes sense, but the man is going to need most of this no matter how he might be employed. That's the thing. An empire has X amount of men and pack animals doing whatever it is they do, and I don't see how moving them to a concentrated location into foreign territory drastically increases their needs. I'm sure that food of various types was transported all over the vast Persian empire, making a trip to Greece cannot be a big deal transport wise. If you were marching across a wasteland, there would certainly be a limit to how far you could penetrate, but you're likely to find some nice grazing land and water on the way, which would extend your range by quite a lot. As your food load lightens, you can also get something back from eating the extra pack animals. That might seem kinda gross to eat a mule, but Xerxes men were eating grass and tree bark on the way back. Not fun.

If a few dozen miles was the extent that grain could be transported without eating it all, there could be no profitable land-based trade in grain, or any type of food, which I'm pretty sure there was... Am I wrong?

Bulk food was not transported by land any great distance. Take the extreme case - traveling in the Arctic or Antarctic. There is a fixed distance beyond which it is not possible to travel, if one has to carry all of one's supplies at the start. (This varies with terrain, but is relatively constant in terms of number of days.) The way this was overcome was by creating caches of supplies along the route. In pre-industrial times, water transport was essential to the bulk transport of goods; the effort of actually bearing the weight was done by the water, and wind and current could supply power without burning up food or fodder. Long distance trade in pre-industrial times was mostly in luxury goods, or by water.

Now, in your own empire, moving a large army is possible since you can create caches of food along the route from the local sources (assuming these lands are not famine stricken). Even so, large forces have great difficulties. As Engels shows in his book, Alexander was careful to move into lands which had available food, and sometimes sent emissaries ahead to bargain with the locals and make sure food was gathered for his forces before they arrived - with the tacit threat of violence if there was no cooperation. Xenophon mentions the same technique, on a smaller scale.

[Sean Manning]

[
1) I can´t share your opinion that ancient soldiers somehow were tougher than medieval or modern soldiers,

I have expressed no such opinion; rather, I said the ancients were more accustomed to privation.

You think the ancients were better able to withstand privation than early modern peasants? Urban poor and landless peasants were the recruiting base for early modern armies, which never raised more than 50,000 to 100,000 men in a field army. If ancient soldiers needed less food, they were weaker and could carry less. That 3 lbs of grain figure has a wide support as a basic diet across peasants in different cultures, if I recall some readings correctly.

Greek soldiers of 480 BC, and the elite of the Persian army, were from the upper class or at least comfortable. Neither were willing to grind their own grain, carry their own arms, or starve themselves.

[Sean Manning]

[Ok, I would like to hear what are your ideas on the subject, what do you think is a reasonable number for a field army based on logistics? and on what grounds?

I think we tend to view all such questions through the dark glass of a modern mind. Even using medieval or earlier records as a starting point seems to me to be likely to produce distortions. I think slaves and servants in the Persian army would have made a contribution as combatants as well as bearers; I think ancient warriors were accustomed to minimal home comforts when they were at home and therefore were able to cope with great hardships on campaign; I think their generals were quite at ease with the idea that their men might be half-starved and exhausted by the end of a campaign, as this was only to be expected; I think they were also happy to send unfit men into battle, as they were great believers in the theory of the big battalions (i.e., that God is on their side); I think that they were also ruthless in exploiting the territory through which they marched; I think that their need to garrison conquered territory would be much reduced, given the fact that they took the conquered nation's manpower with them on their further march; I think they would have rested the sick and injured in garrison roles, as every army does; I think the shock troops would have been kept in peak fighting trim, with special rations, at the expense of the "dory-fodder"; I think the Persians planned long and carefully before committing their Empire to the campaign and they prepared long-range advance depots, as well as using their naval superiority to re-supply from the sea ( "10-100 times cheaper"). My reasoning is based on Herodotos, whom I do not perceive as totally discredited, although I would still not accept his figures as necessarily 100% accurate.

We know that the Persians brought along many true non-combatants. Many Persians brought their wives and concubines in covered wagons (various references through Htd. books 7-9). Mardonius brought along a team of cooks, bakers, and table servants who survived Plataea to serve the Greeks on Mardonius' tablware (Hdt. 9.82). Many of the remoter imperial contingents, if Xerxes really did call a levy of the empre, were likely hostages as much as soldiers. Male servants might fight, but would be likely to be of little use due to poor training, motivation, and weaponry.

Soldiers who are starving will be little if any use in battle. You need strength to shoot a bow or wield spear and shield. If you were Xerxes King of Kings, would you go off to punish the Yauna Beyond the Sea with an army that would be skin and bones by the time it reached Athens? If you had, would the Athenians have let us forget it? Herodotus claims that many invaders starved on the way home, not that they reached Greece starving. Persian strategy emphasized intimidating the Greeks so that no dangerous coalition would form. Xerxes sent three spies who had been caught back to Greece after showing them around his camp (Hdt. 7.146)

There are plenty of nasty tasks that someone has to do in camp that keep servants busy. Grinding grain is slow and tiring, and you have to do it for hours every day. Gathering food from distant grainaries takes time and manpower as well. Shelter has to be erected, forage gathered for animals, clothing cleaned. Most of these are tasks that an Iranian peasant or Anatolian herder would not have to do at home- woman's work.

I think that there might have been somewhat over 100,000 people in the land half of Xerxes' expedition, and the fleet had over 100,000 (there were at least 600 triremes before losses). But I definitely think that 100,000 people is the right ballpark for an upper limit of the original land force. Depots across Anatolia, Thrace, and Macedon, and water transport by the fleet, are the only reason that 100,000 men or slightly more seems practical. My original range of 100-500,000 included the fleet in its upper figure, and the rowers and marines would have eaten much of the food transported by sea.

[Aryaman2]

Since number have been discussed before look on this example.
Before the democratic reforms for 505 B.C. 4 major warrior fraternities existed in Athens.
The Alkmeonide clan had more than 700 families (Androkides "Peri Mystirion") Tha other contesting clans Medontidae, Paionidae and Melanthidae must have about the same number. That makes roughly 4500 hoplites.
The democratic reforms and the 2000 kliroi of conquered Chalikis raise the number to the 10000 hoplites mentioned by Herodotus.
So at least a 50000 army or more would be needed against them in the 1st expedition in 490 B.C.
The excavated remains of the "Neosoikoi" (ships-homes) in Piraeus revealed a complex capable of supporitng 400 triremms
That is only the Athenians.
Xerxes who was aware of the Korinthos convention and the desision of Athens and Sparta to form a league that drew a mumber of important cities and uncertain about the wilingness of the city states considering to ally with him, must have estimated the 100000 fighting men that appeared finally in Platea if not more.
How many men must you mobilize to overcome 100.000?
Kind regards

Hi Stefanos
Note that your figures are based on literary sources, or at best on archaeological evidence that provides a maximum possible number, from that you start discounting. As I said repeatedly, the problem is that we don´t have documentary evidence, and don´t discount that the Persian army in any case was not greatly superior in force, it may could have been even inferior.
From literary evidence, I think the best source for the period is Thucydides, but only on Athenian forces, that he knew first hand, and IIRC the largest Athenian field army for his period he records is 7.000 at Delium.

[Anonymous]

1) Ok, for logistic purposses according to you they were more accustomed to privation (instead of tougher) so they would consume less, is that what you think really?

It's what I have already said, quite clearly, and I did use the phrase, "I think". What of that?

2) Well, if you don´t discard Herodotus numbers, then you can believe anything,

No, that doesn't necessarily follow.

as they are probably among the most inflated figures in any time.

I don't see that as proven - or even probable. Can you prove it? Since you've applied the word "probably" to the claim, I think probably not. (Sorry - couldn't resist that! :lol: )

You have then no reason to deny any wild claim,

And neither do you, at the opposite end of the scale, it would seem. In fact, I've already said I regard 300, 000 as being the likely upper limit.

[Anonymous]

You think the ancients were better able to withstand privation than early modern peasants?

No, I think they were better able to withstand privation than modern soldiers. I hadn't considered early modern armies as a point of comparison. What exactly do you mean by the term?

Urban poor and landless peasants were the recruiting base for early modern armies, which never raised more than 50,000 to 100,000 men in a field army.

So, you're not including early nineteenth-century armies, like Napoleon's 500,000?

If ancient soldiers needed less food, they were weaker and could carry less. That 3 lbs of grain figure has a wide support as a basic diet across peasants in different cultures, if I recall some readings correctly.

I've heard it said that the burden of a soldier changes little over the ages, being usually around 60lbs. I don't agree that this would apply to all the troop types in Xerxes army. His light-armed troops would have had less to carry than his Immortals. It's also claimed that one factor in the Persians' failure was that they were more lightly armed and armoured, generally, than the Greeks, which conflicts with the 60lb rule.

[

I know. We're not concerned with the Greeks and elites are, by definition, minorities. Which begs the question; How big an army has an elite shock force of 10,000?

[Anonymous]

Soldiers who are starving will be little if any use in battle. You need strength to shoot a bow or wield spear and shield.

I know, Sean, I've done both.

If you were Xerxes King of Kings, would you go off to punish the Yauna Beyond the Sea with an army that would be skin and bones by the time it reached Athens?

Of course not, neither does what I wrote earlier support such an interpretation. I would go expecting success to provide me with enough food to allow my army to fight or defeat to remove the necessity of foraging.

Grinding grain is slow and tiring,

Know. Done it. Mind you, I had two small girls produce enough flour for a couple of rolls in an hour, last Monday.

What would your lower figure be?

[Aryaman2]

1) Ok, for logistic purposses according to you they were more accustomed to privation (instead of tougher) so they would consume less, is that what you think really?

It's what I have already said, quite clearly, and I did use the phrase, "I think". What of that?

2) Well, if you don´t discard Herodotus numbers, then you can believe anything,

No, that doesn't necessarily follow.

as they are probably among the most inflated figures in any time.

I don't see that as proven - or even probable. Can you prove it? Since you've applied the word "probably" to the claim, I think probably not. (Sorry - couldn't resist that! :lol: )

You have then no reason to deny any wild claim,

And neither do you, at the opposite end of the scale, it would seem. In fact, I've already said I regard 300, 000 as being the likely upper limit.

1) That it is plainly baseless
2) When I said "probably" I was thinking of some Islamic medieval sources, they certainly beat Herodotus
3) No, I do have some base, it is the comparation with reliable figures provided at later periods, together with the comparison on supply system, what is your base for limiting Herodotus figures to 300.000?

[Aryaman2]

I know. We're not concerned with the Greeks and elites are, by definition, minorities. Which begs the question; How big an army has an elite shock force of 10,000?

Are you implying here the "Inmortals"? Aren´t you aware that they didn´t exist in reality? Herodotus translated wrongly the Persian Anusiya (Companions) as Inmortals, and then made up an story on why they were called thus. Other Western sources quoting Inmortals later derived from Herodotus the name, what BTW indicates how little they knew about the Persian army

[floofthegoof]

What technological advances made it possible for Napoleon to move 500,000 men, that Xerxes did not have access to?

[floofthegoof]

Raising an army is a very expensive thing. Generally, you want your army to be big enough to meet it's objectives, and no bigger. I think this has to be the main factor that limits the size of army. I have never heard of anyone *needing* a bigger army to execute their offensive plans, but having access to plenty of men and material and preperation time, being prevented by logistical concerns. Invaders always bring many more troops along than they expect will be defending, no matter how large or small the army. A cost benefit analysis is made, and the size of the army is decided from this alone.

Xerxes objective seems to be a rather misguided one. There are very few cases in history where the military objective was to make a big show. There are many instances in Herodotus that indicate that Xerxes expected no resistance. Certainly, a bloodless victory is a very noble thing for a conquerer, but history (a field of study only recently invented in his time ) shows us that while you may be able to frighten a person, you can never frighten 'a people'.

[Aryaman2]

What technological advances made it possible for Napoleon to move 500,000 men, that Xerxes did not have access to?

You keep confusing global armies with field armies, Napoleon never moved a field army of 500.000, the top was around 130.000, thanks, as I already explained, to the supply lines system, that was unknown before the second half of the XVII century

[floofthegoof]

What technological advances made it possible for Napoleon to move 500,000 men, that Xerxes did not have access to?

You keep confusing global armies with field armies, Napoleon never moved a field army of 500.000, the top was around 130.000, thanks, as I already explained, to the supply lines system, that was unknown before the second half of the XVII century

I haven't studied Nappy's army all that much, but
from wikipedia:

On June 24, 1812, the Grande Armée of 691,501 men, the largest army assembled up to that point in European history, crossed the river Neman and headed towards Moscow.

The Grande Armée was divided as follows:

A central strike force of 250,000 under the emperor's personal command.
Two other frontline armies under Eugène de Beauharnais (80,000 men) and Jérôme Bonaparte (70,000 men).
Two detached corps under Jacques MacDonald (32,500 men) and Karl Schwarzenberg (34,000 Austrian troopers).
A reserve army of 225,000 troops.

Now, the supply line system you mention sounds quite a bit like what Herodotus described, but somewhat reversed, sending supplies ahead instead of following. Xerxes was basically in friendly territory until Thermopylae don't forget. After one season in the area of Athens, maybe 60-70 miles inside of actual enemy territory, the army was in a starving condition as you may remember from other threads. That really gives the appearance of a cartoonishly oversized army. After all, it was assembled for theatre, not battle.

What more do you have to say about the supply line system? How exactly do we know it wasn't used in ancient times? Is it one of those 'absence of evidence being evidence of absence' things?