Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles

[Aryaman2]

1) I don´t know if from reading Wikipedia article you realize that those armies were spread on a front of more than one thousand Kms, tracing their supplies from different lines.

But that is not the same as their not constituting a field army.

quote]
Well, to me that is a very important point in discussion. Maybe you have another notion of what a field army is, to me it is a force moving together and extracting supply from the same source. The limits on a field army defined as such are very different from those ona global army, they are basically logistics, while on the global army, as posted earlier, would be financial, political, etc.

[Anonymous]

What I mean is, Herodotus said that they were called Inmortals because they were 10.000 and they were always kept at that strength by continually replacing losses, but as they were in fact called Companions the whole story about their numbers is clearly a fable.

Phew! Slow down a second! If the Persians called them Companions, that does not preclude non-Persians giving them a nickname, does it? What evidence do you have that no-one called them Immortals (the question is not intended to imply that you can't possibly have any - I simply want to know whether or not you do). Next, why do you assume that, if he got the name wrong, he must also be wrong about the numbers? It doesn't seem to follow. Then, if they were fewer than 10,000, how much fewer?

I would ask you, why do you think that the ancients were in general more efficient than any of their succesors?

Please look back to what I actually wrote. The reason I believe the Persians may well have been more efficient than some of their successors is the fact that they ran a huge empire for centuries. This seems to me self-evident.

What I assume is that they were equally efficient on average, and I don´t see any reason to think otherwise. Let me ask you a question, do you believe Caesar faced 330.000 Helvetians?

I've never given it a thought - I wasn't aware that such a figure was claimed. Let's not diversify from an already complex discussion.

Do you think Gallic tribes could muster armies in excess of 300.000 while France in 1870 could not, despite railways?

Again, I had no opinion on this, but would note, again, that Napoleon did better, in 1812. Even so, our discussion is not about whether a single nation or ethnic group could muster such numbers, but whether one of the world's greatest empires could, which really puts quite a different complexion on it.

[Anonymous]

Well, to me that is a very important point in discussion. Maybe you have another notion of what a field army is, to me it is a force moving together and extracting supply from the same source. The limits on a field army defined as such are very different from those ona global army, they are basically logistics, while on the global army, as posted earlier, would be financial, political, etc.

Then I think that we do have slightly different ideas on this. To take the Napoleonic example, I would call the whole number entering enemy territory a field army. Those left on home territory to maintain security would be aprt of the global figure.

Perhaps I should make clear that I'm thinking in these terms of a force of between 100,000 and 300,000 entering Greek territory with the possibility of 100,000 or more combatants being present at Thermopylae. You argued for 50,000 combatants, or fewer. The difference between our views could be 50,000 to perhaps 150,000. Even the first figure is huge, in terms of the difference it could make at Thermopylae or Plataea ( but Plataea involves additional calculations, so let's leave that, for now!).

[Tarbicus]

If the First Crusade could muster 100,000 volunteers in such a short timeframe in the 11th C and migrate them all the way to the Middle East from all over Europe, why couldn't Xerxes get say 500,000 together and take them to Greece, especially if he had years to plan and get ready supplies? By the time the entire First Crusade contingent had reached the Middle East their numbers, I understand, included 500,000 footmen on foreign soil.

Given years to prepare, I don't see why the figure of millions is unattainable for Xerxes. I know non-combatants are included in the First Crusade figure, but it is an example of mass migration to war on an unprecedented scale, and in that case consisted of mostly volunteers and unprepared amateurs who felt a duty to a cause.

If Xerxes' plans were widely known in the Persian Empire I woud imagine that all of his eligible subjects would be able to personally prepare over a few years for the likelihood of having to go. Given the First Crusade's 500,000 over one year, simple maths says that millions is not unattainable for Xerxes over say 5 years?

[floofthegoof]

Do you think Gallic tribes could muster armies in excess of 300.000 while France in 1870 could not, despite railways?

This line of thinking clearly needs adjustment. It is wrong to assume that countries are always fielding the maximum possible amount of troops that their logistical technology will allow. We've seen the previous 1812 example. I'm *sure* 1870 France could muster millions of men, but they simply didn't want to. I really wonder if any army has ever been limited in size by logistical technology, but rather limited by the preperation time and quantity of available money and material.

If Nappy could take 691,000 guys 600 miles into Russia and starve them, I have no problem at all believing that Xerxes could take a million+ men less than 100 miles into Greece with the same result. I bet if it was your only objective, you could support many more millions through transporting grain by sea if you had enough grain available. Britain has supported much of it's population for a long time that way right?

It is true that literary sources very often inflate numbers of troops. I think it's very safe to say that the 1,700,000 number measured with the 'fence' method is an exaggeration. However, I think it is very wrong to say that 1,700,000, or even 3,000,000 would have been *impossible*. This last point is where I remain completely unconvinced. I think it is very wrong to say that 300,000 would be an upper limit for logistical reasons.

The story says 7 days to cross a bridge, and I believe it! Prove it wrong!

[Robert Vermaat]

Perhaps I should make clear that I'm thinking in these terms of a force of between 100,000 and 300,000 entering Greek territory with the possibility of 100,000 or more combatants being present at Thermopylae.

Would that include the fleet?

[Robert Vermaat]

The story says 7 days to cross a bridge, and I believe it! Prove it wrong!

Now that's what I want to hear - if anyone doubts a source - fine. But come with arguments, not just theories to 'prove' them wrong!

[Sean Manning]

If the First Crusade could muster 100,000 volunteers in such a short timeframe in the 11th C and migrate them all the way to the Middle East from all over Europe, why couldn't Xerxes get say 500,000 together and take them to Greece, especially if he had years to plan and get ready supplies? By the time the entire First Crusade contingent had reached the Middle East their numbers, I understand, included 500,000 footmen on foreign soil.

What is your source for that? That sounds much higher than estimates I recall in sources like Smail's [i]Crusading Warfare[/'i]. Numbers in medieval sources need to be treated very cautiously for reasons discussed by me and Aryaman2 above.

If Xerxes' plans were widely known in the Persian Empire I woud imagine that all of his eligible subjects would be able to personally prepare over a few years for the likelihood of having to go. Given the First Crusade's 500,000 over one year, simple maths says that millions is not unattainable for Xerxes over say 5 years?

No, it isn't attainable. There is a limit to how much food can be brought to a marching column, moved in through a port, or stockpiled to feed an invasion. Adding more men doesn't help much, and for it to help at all you need to spread most of them out across the countryside, constantly fetching food and vulnerable to attack. I doubt there were five million people in Greece! Remember that a man can only carry about 20-30 days worth of food if he carries little else, so soldiers from most of the empire could have brought no food to Sardis.

Let us imagine an army marching ten abreast, at 600 per mile (so only 3 yards per row of men including space for their carts and pack animals), moving 3 mph. Let us assume they can march 10 hours per day. Then 180,000 (10*600*3*10) people can cross a point in a given day and move into camp. In practice, less men than this will be able to move between camps if we want the people in the rear to reach camp in time to feed themselves and their animals and so on. But this should give some idea of the reasons you can't move a million people in one column.

[Sean Manning]

The story says 7 days to cross a bridge, and I believe it! Prove it wrong!

He actually says it took seven days after Xerxes crossed, but there are some difficulties with his description. Seven is a conventional figure and I treat it as something somebody made up and Herodotus took as true.

In any case, this debate should be about the preponderance of the evidence and not every minor point. I and Aryaman2 have posted a large amount of evidence that an army of over a few hundred thousand would be utterly impractical.

Edit: Clarified my meaning on the length of the bridge crossing.

[Aryaman2]

We are running circles in this discussion. I have already made my basic points time after time, but people keeps confusing field armies with global armies, literary sources with documentary sources, etc. BTW I would like to see in people that keep talking about Napoleon´s example some actual knowledge of Napoleonic campaigns.

[hoplite14gr]

I would like to ask too on sources about the 1st crusade numbers because if they are true for loosely if at all organized people, then, similar numbers are more than likely for an Empire undertaking major campaign.
Kind regards

[Robert Vermaat]

BTW I would like to see in people that keep talking about Napoleon´s example some actual knowledge of Napoleonic campaigns.

I agree, but you also know my view on your use of ancient sources when it comes to numbers.

[floofthegoof]

The story says 7 days to cross a bridge, and I believe it! Prove it wrong!

He actually says just over seven days. Seven is a conventional figure and I treat it as something somebody made up and Herodotus took as true.

That's so unfair!

We are running circles in this discussion. I have already made my basic points time after time, but people keeps confusing field armies with global armies

Nah, we're past that now. I'm challenging you to prove how your logistics theories, if true, would prevent 1,700,000 persians from walking into Athens. You have not done so. Dig deeper.

BTW I would like to see in people that keep talking about Napoleon´s example some actual knowledge of Napoleonic campaigns.

What's there to know? He took 691,000 men from Poland to Moscow. I think we can all agree on that.

I and Aryaman2 have posted a large amount of evidence that an army of over a few hundred thousand would be utterly impractical.

Hmm, impractical you say. Xerxes entire campaign was impractical. I think the important question is whether this army is *possible* so we can debunk the story or not. Whatever the number, this campaign was not the work of a scientific mind. Victory is practical. Anything less than victory in a premeditated invasion has to come from some lack of forethought. Perhaps the army was too big?

[hoplite14gr]

Sources on 1st crusade numbers for reasons of comparizon?
Kind regards

[Magnus]

We are running circles in this discussion. I have already made my basic points time after time, but people keeps confusing field armies with global armies, literary sources with documentary sources, etc.

Maybe it's not so much that people are getting these elements confused, but rather a case of some people discounting one type of evidence over another, because it seems to fit better with their theory on something. This isn't a confused reaction, it's an attempt to remain objective by using all available sources of information to build up a point of view.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps your pay documents aren't accurate? So far I've yet to see anything logically convincing in your arguments to irrefutably prove a Persian army over 100,000 couldn't exist. This might have something to do with the fact that you reject historical and archaeological numbers, then use them a post later. :?