Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles

[floofthegoof]

Here's what I would like to know. In order for there to be a significant logistical difference between a field army and the global army, some aspect of this endeavor would not scale linearly with the others and act as a limiting factor, so which is it? It's kindof a muddled question, let me give an example:

If I can supply 100 guys marching for 3 days with a supply dump of 900 pounds of grain, I should be able to supply 100,000 guys with 900,000 pounds. If 100 guys leave 300 pounds of poop on their nightly stops, 100,000 would leave 300,000 pounds of poop. If 100 guys needs 300 gallons of water every day, then 100,000 would need 300,000 gallons a day.

Something must scale differently to prevent this army from increasing in size indefinately. I suspect it can't be just one thing, but maybe a few together. What are this things that cannot simply be scaled up to maintain any size army?

[Aryaman2]

Here's what I would like to know. In order for there to be a significant logistical difference between a field army and the global army, some aspect of this endeavor would not scale linearly with the others and act as a limiting factor, so which is it? It's kindof a muddled question, let me give an example:

If I can supply 100 guys marching for 3 days with a supply dump of 900 pounds of grain, I should be able to supply 100,000 guys with 900,000 pounds. If 100 guys leave 300 pounds of poop on their nightly stops, 100,000 would leave 300,000 pounds of poop. If 100 guys needs 300 gallons of water every day, then 100,000 would need 300,000 gallons a day.

Something must scale differently to prevent this army from increasing in size indefinately. I suspect it can't be just one thing, but maybe a few together. What are this things that cannot simply be scaled up to maintain any size army?

First of all it depends of the supply system the army is using.
If it is basically getting supplies by foraging, then the limit is of course the land capacity to provide supplies, in ancient times those supplies are almost exclusively food. For example, an army of 2.000 could live off the land without having to dispatch detachments to get food to more distant places, while an army of 10.000 would have to dispatch those detachments, or even splitting the army, limiting the forces available for battle, of course the numbers that could be fed without splitting an army would vary according to different conditions, like weather, season, terrain, composition of the force (cavalry is much more demanding than infantry). In any case a field army using foraging as his main supply system has to be rather small.
If the army is using either supply depots or a fully developed supply lines system, the main limitating factor is transport capabilities. Soldiers can carry 5-7 days rations by themselves, the rest has to be transported. Land transport until the developments of railways remained slow and costly, the cost increasing exponentially with the size of the force, since the draw animals also had to be fed. Besides that there is traffic jams, there was a limit to the number of wagons that could go down a given road without collapsing it, and of course with dirty roads things could go much worse in rainy seasons.
The march rate could be dictated by supply shortages, for instance XVIII century armies stopped regularly every 3 days so that flour could be converted in bread in campaign ovens, so that some empty wagons could be sent back to supply depots.
To put an example, a field army advancing along a road had the supply train marching behind, an army resting in a crossroad that could be supplied by different roads could be larger, an army placed in a port could be supplied by sea/river lanes, so it could become even larger, but the moment it moved away from the city down a road, it could be supplied only along that road, so armies ususally split to take different roads "march apart, fight together" was the rule, armies marched by different routes trying to converge on certain strategic places to face the enemy. That is why so many times we read of reinforcements arriving in the middle of a battle.
Some historians have tried to apply mathematical formulae to supply limits, but there are too many factors, you can estimate a maximum easily, but not a minimum as too many things could go wrong.
For modern armies, of course, supply limits are more obvious, as they consume large quantities of fuel and ammunition as well as food.

[Eleatic Guest]

Slightly off-topic:

I am reading in secondary sources all the time that a certain Harpalos was the engineer of Xerxes' second potoon bridge. I can't find however any reference to him at Herodot. Where can I find this elusive figure?

[Antonius Lucretius]

I learned a lot about logisics from a gentleman called Theodore Ayrault Dodge.
He was a Union officer in the American Civil War and a military historian of both that war and of the great generals of ancient and European history. He was considered to be the greatest American military historian of the nineteenth century.
Amongst others famous warriors, he wrote about Alexander, Caesar and Hannibal. I read the one he wrote on Caesar and it is simply brilliant.
Since the man lived at a time when armies still moved by animal and human power, he has to be recognized as an excellent source as far as logistics and the moving of large armies is concerned.
He knew perfectly well how much food a man had to carry to travel so many miles, in which season and over what terrain. I think I'll buy the one on Alexander.
Besides, he writes in a beautiful and elegant nineteenth century english. Very clear, simple and understandable. I highly recommend it.

Now to go back to the puny Persian army faced with the invasion of the innumerable Makedonian hordes... :roll:
The Persian army had all the logistical means to move and supply a huge army I think, although --this is only a personal estimate-- figures over 300 000 should not be taken at face value. But 300 000 or even 100 000 is a huge army.
Long before the Persians, the Assyrians managed to send expeditionary forces all the way to Armenia, through supposedly unpassable mountain ranges. A greater feat than Hannibal crossing the Alps. You need logistics for that.
The Persians inherited that knowledge; they carved themselves an empire that went from the Mediterranean to Afghanistan and you just don't do that without logistics.
How do you carry for hundreds of miles a siege train similar to those shown on Assyrian reliefs without logistics?
Before you think about the siege train you think about the food for the animals pulling the train and the men operating it. And so on..
The argument about the Persians having poor logistics doesn't hold much water IMHO...
And that makes the argument about the "puny" Persian army facing Alexander sort of leaky too..

[Aryaman2]

How do you carry for hundreds of miles a siege train similar to those shown on Assyrian reliefs without logistics?
Before you think about the siege train you think about the food for the animals pulling the train and the men operating it. And so on..
The argument about the Persians having poor logistics doesn't hold much water IMHO...
And that makes the argument about the "puny" Persian army facing Alexander sort of leaky too..

In ancient times armies didn´t carry large siege trains, they built siege machines on the spot, so your argument about the Persians having great logistics because they had to carry them for hundreds of miles doesn´t hold much water IMHO...

[Magnus]

I think what he is saying is that before you consider the siege train (this is extra supplies and what not for laying sieges, not necessarily the siege engines themselves), you have to realize how much logistics went into the regular supply train. The fact that you and I both read the same thing and interpreted a different meaning from it will illustrate a point I make further down this post.

Inaki, I think the reason that people aren't seeing eye-to-eye with you is that there is an equal amount of evidence contrary to what your ideas are trying to show. While it seems you have done your research, you seem to discount too many other facets in favour of others which suppport your theories. I think this is one of the main reasons you haven't made a convincing argument in this case.

Add to that is that there is too much "opinion" thrown around in this thread which are, I am sure based on references, but no-one seems to back much up. Some people have given specific book titles and what not, and that is very helpful. But saying I read "a document about such and such", or "a manuscript detailing this and that" does not prove where your sources are coming from. Nor does it allow anyone to cross-reference your claims and refute them, or provide another point of view.

What you may derive from one article, someone else may have a different idea or interpretation of the evidence. For example, you like to quote the pay logs of various armies and use those as evidence for troop numbers and whatnot, but how accurate are they? We live in the 21st century, and there are numerous reasons why modern records are inaccurate, either on purpose or accident.

So while you may be feeling frustrated, realize that there are no absolutes in the research you have done. It's not a math or a science that can be proven.

[Aryaman2]

I think what he is saying is that before you consider the siege train (this is extra supplies and what not for laying sieges, not necessarily the siege engines themselves), you have to realize how much logistics went into the regular supply train. The fact that you and I both read the same thing and interpreted a different meaning from it will illustrate a point I make further down this post.

Inaki, I think the reason that people aren't seeing eye-to-eye with you is that there is an equal amount of evidence contrary to what your ideas are trying to show. While it seems you have done your research, you seem to discount too many other facets in favour of others which suppport your theories. I think this is one of the main reasons you haven't made a convincing argument in this case.

Add to that is that there is too much "opinion" thrown around in this thread which are, I am sure based on references, but no-one seems to back much up. Some people have given specific book titles and what not, and that is very helpful. But saying I read "a document about such and such", or "a manuscript detailing this and that" does not prove where your sources are coming from. Nor does it allow anyone to cross-reference your claims and refute them, or provide another point of view.

What you may derive from one article, someone else may have a different idea or interpretation of the evidence. For example, you like to quote the pay logs of various armies and use those as evidence for troop numbers and whatnot, but how accurate are they? We live in the 21st century, and there are numerous reasons why modern records are inaccurate, either on purpose or accident.

So while you may be feeling frustrated, realize that there are no absolutes in the research you have done. It's not a math or a science that can be proven.

The post says "siege train similar to those shown on Assyrian reliefs" do you think he is not talking about siege engines?
Of course there is no absolutes, pay rolls and muster rolls can be inacurate, but they provide a picture much closer to reality than literary sources, that in the best of cases have taken their numbers from them, do you know any document more accurate than pay rolls and muster rolls, or their equivalent monthly returns for later ages?
So, what I try to set is a basic frame in which consider literary sources when they talk about numbers. Let´s see, you know that Herodotus is lying when he says 1.700.000, or 5 million Persians, but what would be a reasonable number and on what grounds? do you cut Herodotus figures by 10, 15, 20? Traditionally scholars either use numbers given by literary sources at face value or cut them arbitrarily, as I said I try to set a basic frame for reasonable numbers using a comparative method and taking into account logistics.

[Magnus]

But what you can't seem to fathom, is that some other person can look at the exact same sources as you, and come up with a completely different conclusion or theory based on the extant information at hand.

And again, you're infering an idea based on pay statements from a later era anyway, to try and find a basis for an empire that existed a thousand years prior.

The problem is you have no solid proof of anything you are saying. Rather, you've an idea, a thesis in your head that you've perceived based on your readings about the size of Xerxes army, and used your own logic to justify your ideas based on these infered pieces of information.

This is not proof. And it's not enough to solidly deduct a fact. Until something more accurate can be found to decide either way, you're going to have to accept the fact that people are going to disagree with you. You may not like it, but those people's ideas are no less or more valid than your own, since they are after all, theories based on corelative information.

You're best bet is to present your information, debate what you can, and leave it at that. Otherwise you're just arguing your own opinion, and that is completely pointless, since everyone thinks they're own opinion is correct anyway.

[Antonius Lucretius]

In ancient times armies didn´t carry large siege trains

Jeeeeeeesus....
And what did they do with them when the siege was through? Threw them away?
Actually I think this whole theory of the "puny" Persian army is pretty contemptful of what the mighty, huge and powerful Persian empire was.

[Magnus]

I also find that a bit odd...some of the metal components used in siege engines like scorpions, ballistae and onagers would almost certainly have to be brought along. It wouldn't be feasible to try and set up some kind of forge in the thick of a siege camp to spend hours if not days to make these components.

Not to mention some of the wooden ones.

[Sean Manning]

But what you can't seem to fathom, is that some other person can look at the exact same sources as you, and come up with a completely different conclusion or theory based on the extant information at hand.

And again, you're infering an idea based on pay statements from a later era anyway, to try and find a basis for an empire that existed a thousand years prior.

The problem is you have no solid proof of anything you are saying. Rather, you've an idea, a thesis in your head that you've perceived based on your readings about the size of Xerxes army, and used your own logic to justify your ideas based on these infered pieces of information.

This is not proof. And it's not enough to solidly deduct a fact. Until something more accurate can be found to decide either way, you're going to have to accept the fact that people are going to disagree with you. You may not like it, but those people's ideas are no less or more valid than your own, since they are after all, theories based on corelative information.

You're best bet is to present your information, debate what you can, and leave it at that. Otherwise you're just arguing your own opinion, and that is completely pointless, since everyone thinks they're own opinion is correct anyway.

Nobody on this thread has found an example of a premodern field army reliably attested at over a hundred thousand troops, with the sole exception parts of Napoleon's Grand Army (which was smaller than it seemed and quickly weakened). Great Greek armies of the Hellenistic period, such as those at Raphia (Polybius 5.79ff), are always said to be under 100,000. We have cited Engels for some of the reasons larger forces didn't work; I would also add G.T. Griffith's The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World for a discussion of how Alexander the Great's reinforcements from Greece drained away as fast as he recieved them, leaving his army size fairly constant at around 50,000 troops.

All of recorded premodern military history, critically analyzed, seems to provide enough of an evidence base to judge whether field armies of several hundred thousand troops were practical, and to say that with one or two exceptions they were not. Strengths of individual ancient armies, of course, are usually uncertain enough to be a matter of opinion within certain reasonable bounds. I agree we will never know how large Xerxes' invasion army was closer than a factor of two or so. But respectfullly, I don't think the question of whether field armies of several hundred thousand troops were possible can simple be passed off as unknowable and a matter of opinion. Some opinions are simply unsuportable.

This thread has been going around in circles, and I expect this will be my last contribution.

[Felix]

I also find that a bit odd...some of the metal components used in siege engines like scorpions, ballistae and onagers would almost certainly have to be brought along. It wouldn't be feasible to try and set up some kind of forge in the thick of a siege camp to spend hours if not days to make these components.

Not to mention some of the wooden ones.

I would like to point out that in 1453, the Ottoman Turks found it perfectly feasible to set up forges and fabricate cannon outside the walls of Constantine's city; the cannon that were casted on the spot were too heavy to have been easily brought there if they had been cast elsewhere.

I agree that many prefabricated parts may have existed for certain pieces of equipment in certain armies, i.e. the armies of Trajan. It is not clear to me that the Persians had anything so sophisticated.

[Magnus]

I also never said Xerxes army was comprised of [X] amount of troops. In fact, I couldn't really care too much about this thread since it is Sean, as you say going around in circles. What I was trying to make evidently clear was the fact that people can analyze the same piece of information and come to a different conclusion, and that's OK. Some of you guys get so wrapped up in your own egos when it comes to debating something that you seem to forget that other people are allowed to not only disagree from time to time, but maintain their own thoughts and beliefs, especially in a case where nothing can really be certain.

My advice to some of the more active members of this thread who can't grasp the concept that people will not always be on the same page as you regardless of your own research, is to let it go. Present your case, and if there is nothing more to be done in the thread, then let it go. If there is one thing I've learned about internet forums is that there is no point in trying to crusade against another person's opinion regardless of what it is. All you do is waste time in your life when you could actually be doing something meaningful.

(Just to be clear, I'm not aiming this post at anyone in particular, but it goes for everyone who feels a certain thread is just going around and around.)

[Aryaman2]

IMO the main problem with the discussion in the thread is some kind of sensibility about the Hellenic achievements, some people regarding the fact that the Persian army was not the massive hordes of slaves pitted against a few defenders of the Hellenic freedom portrayed by Greek sources as diminishing them, as a sort of revisionism. I imagine people would be less sanguine if talking about other periods/armies.
Different conclusions are ok when logically suported, but when they are based on feelings they are not, however people convinced not by reasons are unlikely to be convinced of the contrary by reasons. Anyway I do feel I am wasting my time in this thread so I will not post further in it.

[Anonymous]

Very often, people diligently pursue research into works that will support a specific point of view because they are emotionally attached to it in the first place.
I think, if either side had sole possession of reason, in this debate, it would have ended long ago, in respectful disagreement. I think you are wise to decide not to post further.