Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles

[Robert Vermaat]

1) I said it at the start, in the past thread, I forgot to say it everytime.
2) Not only poets, I include historians. The problem with ancient historians is that we can´t compare their numbers with that of documentary sources, from medieval times onwards we can, sometimes, and everytime we can they are grossly inflated.

So you have compare every source from medieval history? Somehow I doubt that. But even if you had, to extrapolate back to ancient times is no good methodology. Therefore your conclusion that every historian writing about army numbers is useless (you said it, not me), is worthless. It goes against everything that's being taught about historical methodology.

I remember we had this discussion before. Now I can stay silent every time you make these wild claims, but I guess I can't do that.

3) The armies of Constantine or Licinius are given by literary sources, not documentary. The numbers I gave before for the growth in size from XIV to XVIII century are based only on documentary evidence.

Documents written by whom?

4) It was more efficient because the requirements of the army were much lower by restricting the size of the baggage.
5) Theoretically the Persians had the advantage of fighting at home, but "Alexander would never commit his entire army for a campaign that had not surrendered to him in advance" Donald W. Engels, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army, page 120.

yes, so?
The Persian had much larger resources, so they probably could afford these large baggage trains. So far I've nowhere read that their army came into difficulties because of that train. It may well mean ('may') that their logistics were efficient enough.

My point thast, sure, Alexander had a 'leaner' and smaller army, but his logistical lines were a) longer because he had to get it all from home or b) far more insecure because he had to get the remainder by plunder and requisitions, taking pains not to alienate those who suffered from that.

2) Setting supply depots in advance, as did Alexander, you can do this in friendly territory, or taking a surrender in advance.

Sure, but that did not happen all too often, especially not in territory that had to be conquered.

3) Using supply lines, that system didn´t develop until second half of the XVII century, allowing the growth in army size I have explained. The system requires a net of depots in the rear, a large transport column and an especilized supply corps. The army advance along a road it gets the supplies by supply trains from a supply head 5-7 journeys away, everytime the army advance further a new supply head is stablished. This is the system used from then until present days, and has nothing to do with what ancient armies used.

No, but 'supply lines' did exist nonetheless, in the sense that provisions, arms and especially reinforcemnts could and were brought up from the rear. But instead of depots they used towns and settlements, or transport (men, horses!) from their home lands. But like I said, the Persians did not need that.