10-30-2006, 03:07 PM
Quote: 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!
Rich Marinaccio
