10-30-2006, 08:41 AM
Quote: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?
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: 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.
