10-18-2006, 03:55 PM
Here we are again!
We have discussed this many times, and probably we will in the future. This time I will try to clssify arguments so we can resume several threads of discussion in one.
Minimalistic view (my own)
1) Logistics. Here we make comparisons with armies in which numbers are reliable (muster and pay rolls)
2) Nature of Persian army (This is main Delbruck theory, besides logistics) The size of the Persian empire has nothing to do with his army, that was a "feudal" army composed by the noble persians and their retainers, together with some non Persian vassal lords and their retainers. The basic component was cavalry, so it must be a small army by nature
3) Nature of Greek army. It was an urban levy, its main component infantry, and it was fighting at home, so their logistic problems were lower, so it must be a large army than the Persian.
4) Sources. They are literary and biased, I think no one can´t doubt that, so they are logically unreliable. Delbruck compared them to the Swiss sources on the army of Charles the Bold, and the actual numbers from muster and pay rolls, 10 times lower. My experience with literary sources is always like that, even when they lack bias.
Maximalistic view
1) Persians defied logistics, they assembled a huge army that then starved in the road.
2) The Persian empire was huge, so should be its army
3) The Persians were logistic genius, they did military revolution 2.000 years before modern Europe. There are lots of things they could do in those times we can´t now.
4) Sources. Herodotus millions are not to be believed, but they could be some how a departure point for rational guess.
We have discussed this many times, and probably we will in the future. This time I will try to clssify arguments so we can resume several threads of discussion in one.
Minimalistic view (my own)
1) Logistics. Here we make comparisons with armies in which numbers are reliable (muster and pay rolls)
2) Nature of Persian army (This is main Delbruck theory, besides logistics) The size of the Persian empire has nothing to do with his army, that was a "feudal" army composed by the noble persians and their retainers, together with some non Persian vassal lords and their retainers. The basic component was cavalry, so it must be a small army by nature
3) Nature of Greek army. It was an urban levy, its main component infantry, and it was fighting at home, so their logistic problems were lower, so it must be a large army than the Persian.
4) Sources. They are literary and biased, I think no one can´t doubt that, so they are logically unreliable. Delbruck compared them to the Swiss sources on the army of Charles the Bold, and the actual numbers from muster and pay rolls, 10 times lower. My experience with literary sources is always like that, even when they lack bias.
Maximalistic view
1) Persians defied logistics, they assembled a huge army that then starved in the road.
2) The Persian empire was huge, so should be its army
3) The Persians were logistic genius, they did military revolution 2.000 years before modern Europe. There are lots of things they could do in those times we can´t now.
4) Sources. Herodotus millions are not to be believed, but they could be some how a departure point for rational guess.
AKA Inaki
