Numbers [Archive]

Rosacrux

02-20-2003, 03:54

400K Moores? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif Extremely funny... In fact the moorish force was just a large raiding party and as such should not be more than 20-30.000 men large. The largest estimation about that battle I've read speaks of 50.000 of them, but I think even that is a vast exageration.

The dark age armies were relatively small - nothing like what we saw in the previous era, when large empire clashed. A nice, big army should be around 15-20.000 men, half of those battle ready and the rest cannon fodder.

Advancing in time, the armies tended to become bigger, reflecting the passing from the fragmented feudal world to that of the new Kingdoms of Europe.

That's about the western europe, in the east things were kinda different. We've seen some pretty large armies clash during the same era in the middle east (especially when Byzantium was involved). Byzantines have regularely send to battle forces of 30, 40, 50, 60K and it's safe to assume they faced similar opposition. Ironically, the largest force Byzantium ever produced was apparently the 100K ammased to fend of the Seljuk Turks, by Romanos Diogenes. But only about 30% of those 100.000 actually took part in the battle of Manzikert, the battle that sealed Byzantiums fate.

The rest had either abandoned the emperor, or fled to the Seljuks (as their Turkic brethren Patzinakes did, who were recruited as mercenaries by Romanos).

Hakonarson

02-20-2003, 05:45

It's more likely that Romanus' army at Manzikert was 20-25,000 men given teh state of Byzantine organisation at the time - there was also a large detatchment including all teh Norman Franks (the elite of the army) and all teh siege equipment not with the army.

at the sttart of the campaign he probably had 60,000 men.

the turks probably only numbered about 15-20,000.

Some armies could be very large indeed - the Roman army at Cannae was possibly 60-70,000 - being 2 complete consular armies, while in the civil wars the 2 armies at Pharsalus were 25,000 Caesarians and 45,000 Pompeans.

The Roman army of Crassus destroyed by the Parthians was about 25,000 of which 5000 escaped, while the Parthians had soem 9-11,000 horsemen opposing them.

At Marathon there were 10,000 Athenians & Plaeteans vs 20-25,000 Persians, while Alexander's army started about 30-32,000 foot and 4500 horsemen, after reinforcements and the battles of Issos and Granicus it was about 40,000 foot and 7,000 horse - the Persians at Guagamela were reputedly 1 million men - they were certainly a large force but not THAT big, and probalby included a lot of non-combatant levy

The Persians at Granicus were probably about 10,000 cavalry and 5000 foot

At Magnesia there were some 30,000 Roman foot and 2800 calvalry vs 70,000 Selecids of all varieties, at Cynocephalae the Romas had about 25,000 foot (about 1/3rd of it Aitolian greek allied, 1/3rd Roman, 1/3rd other Italian) and 2600 cavalry vs about 25000 Macedonian fot (16,000 pikemen) and 2000 cavalry.

at Zama Hannibal had about 40000 foot and 4000 cavalry, vs Scipios 30,000 foot and 6400 cavalry.

Wellington

02-20-2003, 06:18

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Feb. 19 2003,22:45)]at Zama Hannibal had about 40000 foot and 4000 cavalry, vs Scipios 30,000 foot and 6400 cavalry.

Quote[/b] ]Some armies could be very large indeed - the Roman army at Cannae was possibly 60-70,000 - being 2 complete consular armies

I would suggest the Polybius figure of 86,000 is far wide of the mark.

We are informed that 10,000 Romans survived and these were later formed into 2 legions and sent to Siciliy. Polibious tells us 7,000 Roman prisoners (excluding allies) were sold to Greece (many of whom were repatriated 20 years later) - the Senate spent several days considering the fate of these prioners after Cannae as Hannibal offered to sell them back to Rome for ransom.

Probably a similar number of allies escaped and/or were taken as prisoners (although I strongly suspect more allies died due to the disposition of the legions and the manner of the encirclement at Cannae. If we consider 25,000+ escaped with their libves then the ancient sources casualty figures of between 50,000 and 70,000 would appear to be consistent.

Although Rome fielded larger legions at Cannae (5000+ as opposed to the normal 4000+) we have no sources to suggest ROmes allies did likewise. Even so, 8 legions of ROmans plus allies would equate to 40,000 Roman infantry, 32,000+ allied infantry and 6,000+ cavalry - which still approaches 80,000.

Whichever way you look at it the Roman army at Cannae was HUGE by the standards of the time.

Quote[/b] ]at Zama Hannibal had about 40000 foot and 4000 cavalry, vs Scipios 30,000 foot and 6400 cavalry

Most contemporary sources conclude Hannibal had around 30,000 foot or less. We are informed he formed his infantry up in 3 lines, 12,000 in the 1st line unknown number in the 2nd line and around 4,000 veteran heavy infantry in the 3rd line.

When he landed at Leptis Minor he was joined by a body of 2,000 Numidian cavalry. I suspect he had less medium/heavy cavalry than that (1000+?) which would explain why his cavalry arm was routed so quickly.

Considering Scipios destruction of 2 Carthaginina armies on the African mainland before Hannibal was recalled from Italy, and if the sources are correct in informing us that he brought around 12,000 infantry back, a figure of 30,000 (very similar to Scipios numbers) seems reasonable.

Scipios infantry/cavalry numbers are about right.

deejayvee

02-20-2003, 08:22

Also, after the plague hit Western Europe, their army sizes decreased dramatically. A good comparison would be the battles of Crecy and Agincourt.

At Crecy in 1346, 40,000 French vs 25,000 English.

At Agincourt in 1415, 20,000 French vs 6,000 English.

Wellington

02-20-2003, 08:31

Whoops,

My previous post was meant to say

Quote[/b] ]I would suggest the Polybius figure of 86,000 is NOT far wide of the mark.

Note the
Quote[/b] ] NOT - changes the whole meaning.

Rosacrux

02-20-2003, 11:31

Hakonarson

The number of Romanos's army comes from Runciman, which is - I guess you'd agree - one of the greatest experts in Byzantium.

Runciman, based on the sources, estimates that Romanos actually had to fight with only a fragment of that initial force, but the army that started the campaign was huge, prolly the largest ever assembled in Byzantium.

According to the best sources, the Turkish army consisted of about 35-45.000 men, most of those mounted. Those numbers are suggested by even the Turkish historians (who tend to tone down their ancestors numbers in great battles).

econ21

02-21-2003, 15:14

I was reading some stuff on warfare in England in the "Dark Ages" and it said armies then/there were often very small. A few thousand being a lot. IIRC, Alfred recruited a large standing army (20,000+) to hold off the Vikings but at other times a band of adventurers a few hundred strong could take a kingdom.

Longshanks

02-21-2003, 20:27

The barbarians in the Roman era also fielded armies that could be quite large. In the Gallic Wars, Caesar was almost always outnumbered by his enemies.

Even if the numbers were exaggerated in The Gallic Wars, the Gauls or Germans still would have had a significant advantage in numbers over Caesar.

Toda Nebuchadnezzar

02-24-2003, 22:25

About getting bigger through time, this is very true.

In a short space of time, Tokugawa Ieyasu had 75,000 men at the Battle of Sekigahara under his ultimate command.

And a few years later when he wanted to expell all the catholics because they were whipping up support against him, he attacked Osaka Castle with a staggering 180,000 men.

But that was slightly later, and Japan's system has to be taken into account.

Not 100% sure about Dark age times. Anyone hazard a guess as to the size of Atilla's army when he marched into Roman occupied Gaul?

Hakonarson

02-25-2003, 03:34

Here's soem figures from "Armies of the Macedonian & Punic Wars":

Thessaly, 353BC: Phillip of Macedon 20,0000 ft & 30000 horse vs Onomarchos of Phokia with 20,000 foot & 500 horse

Krimisos, 341BC: Syracusans 10,000 foot & 1000 horse beat 70,000 carthaginian foot and 10,000 horses (total cavalry, chariot horses & remounts)

Chaironeia 338BC: Phillip of Macedon with 30,000 foot and 2000 horse beat a Greek alliance headed by Athens & Thebes with 35000 foot and apparently no horse - or at least none took part in the battle.

Hellespont 321BC: Krateros (General of the new "Regent" of Macedonia Antipater with 20,000 foot and 2000 horse was defeated by Eumenes with 20,0000 foot and 5000 horse.

Pisidia 320BC: Antigonos one-eye with 40,0000 foot, 7000 horse and 70 elephants defeated Alketas with 16000 foot and 900 horse

Paraitakene 317BC: Eumenes with 17000 phalangites, 18000 light infantry, 6300 cavalry and 125 elephants "drew" with Atigonos One-eye with 28000 phalangites, 8500-11000 horse and 64 elephants.

Gabiene 316BC: Antigonos with 22000 infantry (maybe excluding light infantry), 9000 cavalry and 65 elephants defeated Emenes with 36700 foot, 6000 horse and 114 elephants - Eumenes phalanx had the better of the fight with their opponents, but Antigonos captured their baggage and defeated all the supportign cavalry, so they Eumenid foot formed square and negotiated to hand over Eumenes in return for their baggage

Gaza 312BC: Ptolemy with 18000 foot and 4000 horse defeated Antigonos's son Demetrios with 4400 horswe, 1100 phalangites, about 2000 light infantry and 43 elephants.

redrooster

02-25-2003, 11:28

eumenes was quite a tragic character. I always thought that he possibly played a bigger role in alexander's campaigns then parmenion

Sainika

02-25-2003, 14:46

The biggest ever ancient battle was between Atilla, leades of the Huns and Aetius, roman general at 451 BC. It is called as battle on Catalaun fields. Atilla had 500 000 men and romans not much smaller. This battle stopped furhter hunnic expansion and gave Western roman empire a little break before it's end http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Just imagine those 500k+ men fighting hand-to-hand in desperate efforts to win As it is known noone won this battle though Atilla had more chances. Atilla did not go futher because of the beginning of a winter. Aetius did not pursue huns because he suffered heavy losses and had no possibility to compete with excellent hunnic warriors.

troymclure

02-25-2003, 14:47

I know Gaius Marius was supposed to have defeated an army of about 500,000 germans. Bearing in mind of course that it wasn't so much an army as a tribal migration so there would have been a large amount of non-combatants. He also did it in three seperate battles (they had seperated their forces, for what reason i can't remember).

Rosacrux

02-25-2003, 15:04

Sainika

Actually, in the Catalaunian plains both sides together fielded less than 100.000 men.

troymclure

02-25-2003, 15:28

heh just thought of another one. battle of thermopylae anyone?
what was it 150,000-200,000 persians? vs about 10,000 greeks?

Sainika

02-25-2003, 15:29

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 25 2003,17:04)]Sainika

Actually, in the Catalaunian plains both sides together fielded less than 100.000 men.
There are several positions about it between historians. BUT the number of 100 000 is very low. Aetius headed a wide coalition of romans, goths, franks etc. Hunnic army consisted of huns, germans and various nomadic tribes of Eastern Europe. The losses of both roman and hunnic army were from 165 000 to 300 000 men depending on data understanding. So one can compare these numbers with the initial sizes of two armies.

Rosacrux

02-25-2003, 15:40

If you agree to those numbers, I guess you do believe that the Persians invaded Greece with 2.4 million men and Alexander faced 1.000.000 In Issus?

Sainika

02-25-2003, 16:08

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 25 2003,17:40)]If you agree to those numbers, I guess you do believe that the Persians invaded Greece with 2.4 million men and Alexander faced 1.000.000 In Issus?
Of course I do not believe in 2.4 mln of persians or 1 mln in Issus. BUT I do belive that contemporary to Catalaunian battle historians and their successors were much more objective compared to those in times of persian invasion or Alexander's conquest. Almost all historians agree that battle in Catalaunian plains was the most impressive in ancient world and it is regarded as culmination of roman history.
And why this number seems to be impossible? Rome was in the biggest danger from Punic wars; huns, moving from east, accumulated thousands of men, women and children of various tribes all over Asia and Eastern Europe. If Atilla had 500 000 men in his army then the whole unity of tribes was around 2 - 2,5 mln of population. Not very big regarding to all those geopolitical changes happened after.
And what about romans? Westgoths alone could give +100 thousand men, and do not forget franks, gauls etc. Aetius managed big mobilisation of troops all around Italy and Gaul. That is why Roman empire weakened greatly after Catalaunian plains: it suffered enormous losses and could not resist any more to the new invaders.

Sainika

02-25-2003, 16:26

A quote from Iordan's chronicles:
"On the side of the Romans stood the patrician Aetius , on whom at that time the whole empire of the West depended; a man of such wisdom that he had assembled warriors from everywhere to meet them on equal terms. Now these were his auxiliaries: Franks, Sarmatians, Armoricians, Liticians, Burgundians, Saxons, Riparians, Olibriones (once Romans soldiers and now the flower of the allied forces), and some other Celtic or German tribes."

A lot of allies to hold the most inmortant battle for the glory of Rome. Huge forces. Much more than 100k. And do not forget about Atilla's army. Huns, hepides, germans, and many others.
You still think about 100k battle? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Rosacrux

02-25-2003, 16:30

The western roman empire was already a joke before Cataulanian plains. it wasn't "in danger", it was already crumbling. The Roman army was a very small army, consisted of Germanic mercenaries and not the mightiest war machine the world has ever seen (like it was many years ago).

The Eastern empire, flurishing at the time, could barely field 60.000-70.000 men. No, the "battle of nations" was not even close to what you describe. Not by a mile. 1.000.000 in a single battlefield in that time? The whole Vandals tribe was less than 100.000 (including the women and kids) and the Huns, according to the estimations, never fielded more than 50.000 men. Those are two examples out of many, mind you.

Quote[/b] ]BUT I do belive that contemporary to Catalaunian battle historians and their successors were much more objective compared to those in times of persian invasion or Alexander's conquest.

Why? Ancient Greek historians are considered pretty much faithful to truth and "scientific", why would the 4th AD historians be more "objective"? There was no such thing as objectivity back then.

Sainika

02-25-2003, 17:13

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 25 2003,18:30)]The western roman empire was already a joke before Cataulanian plains. it wasn't "in danger", it was already crumbling. The Roman army was a very small army, consisted of Germanic mercenaries and not the mightiest war machine the world has ever seen (like it was many years ago).

The Eastern empire, flurishing at the time, could barely field 60.000-70.000 men. No, the "battle of nations" was not even close to what you describe. Not by a mile. 1.000.000 in a single battlefield in that time? The whole Vandals tribe was less than 100.000 (including the women and kids) and the Huns, according to the estimations, never fielded more than 50.000 men. Those are two examples out of many, mind you.

Quote[/b] ]BUT I do belive that contemporary to Catalaunian battle historians and their successors were much more objective compared to those in times of persian invasion or Alexander's conquest.

Why? Ancient Greek historians are considered pretty much faithful to truth and "scientific", why would the 4th AD historians be more "objective"? There was no such thing as objectivity back then.
1. About objectivity. As I remember our knowledge about persian invasion are based mainly on Herodotus History. Herodotus wrote his book 300 years later of greek-persian wars.
Iordan wrote his "about origin of goths" in VI cent. i.e. 100 years later after Catalaunian battle. So who can be regarded as more objective?
2. About numbers. Actually I don't think that there were about 1 mln men fighting hth on those plains. BUT let us have a simple count: Iordan descrides 8 big tribal unities ans a number of small tribes - allies of Aetius. If every big tribe (visigoths, franks, germans etc) gave 20 000 men each we have already more than 160 000 men at all. Plus romans - germans mercs and roman citizens. So we have around 250 000+ men. That is roman forces.
About Atilla's forces ancient accounts refer to 500 000+ men. But we have to take into account the fact, that it was a tradition to exaggerate enemy's armies. In ancient Greece it was uncontrolled because of the whole greek tradition in such cases http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Anyway wy may reduce Atilla's forces from 500 000 to 300 000 easily http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif. So we have now a battle of 250 000 + 300 000 = 550 000 + men. IT IS VERY POSSIBLE. Accounts referred to minimum losses of 160 000 men. Reasonable number regarding the total number of troops on both sides.
3. About Eastern Roman Empire. I don't know how many warriors it could have, may be 60 000 - 70 000 men is correct. And it became logical that byzantine's emperor prefered to make peace with huns by paying them a lot of money. HUNS AND THEIR ALLIES OUTNUMBERED IMPERIAL FORCES.
4. About the number of the huns. As mongols later huns were only one tribe in great mix of tribes moving to west. If we count all the population of huns, germans (do not forget about them), goths, early slavic tribes, finn-ugric tribes etc., the initial estimation of 2-2.5 mln becomes sound logically.
So not 1 mln but 550k+. BUT IT WAS THE MOST IMPRESSIVE AND BIGGEST BATTLE IN ANCIENT WORLD.

Sainika

02-25-2003, 17:26

And by the way the backbone of Atilla's army consisted of ostrogoths, previously conquered by Atilla. Not huns.

JANOSIK007

02-25-2003, 18:13

Quote[/b] (Sainika @ Feb. 25 2003,10:26)]And by the way the backbone of Atilla's army consisted of ostrogoths, previously conquered by Atilla. Not huns.
How about Slavs?
Didn't Huns swept through their territory?
There must have been sgnificant numbers of Slavs as well.
Slavic tribes had preety high population before the invasion of Huns.
Therefore there must have been many Slavs in Attila's army.

Sainika

02-25-2003, 18:27

Iordan did not say anything about Slavs but I think several slavic tribes participated in hun invasion. The real movement of Slavs in Europe began later - with goths and other german tribes. Goths inhabited Western Europe and Crimea, slavs - Central and Southern Europe.

Longshanks

02-25-2003, 21:05

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 25 2003,09:30)]The western roman empire was already a joke before Cataulanian plains. it wasn't "in danger", it was already crumbling. The Roman army was a very small army, consisted of Germanic mercenaries and not the mightiest war machine the world has ever seen (like it was many years ago).
I can't comment on the numbers involved, as I only know the basic facts sorrounding the battle on the Cataulanian plains. But Rosacrux is definately right here. The Roman Empire(as well as the Roman army) had been in decline for well over a century by this point, and had in fact already fallen to the barbarian Alaric.

Toda Nebuchadnezzar

02-25-2003, 21:09

Question: Were the Huns ancestors of the later Mongols. Both had the same style of fighting from horse back, both came from the plains, just the Huns a little earlier?

Answers on a postcard to Toda at Org Forums. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

DojoRat

02-25-2003, 21:24

The problem with massive armies is they required massive amounts of food, and carting to take it along the march. I can't comment on the reliability of the sources that have been cited but it sems like 50,000 actual warriors a side seems about right.

Also, we in the west see this battle now as a them vs. us affair but it was really just another power play (ok a big one)trying to fill the vacumn of the collasping western empire. As Rosacrux said there was no Roman army at this time. In fact Aetius' power base had previously been his strong relationship with the Huns and he relied on their mercenary muscle to prop up the west. I think he might of fostered with the huns as a youth as well, though I'm not positive about that.

Longshanks

02-25-2003, 22:01

Quote[/b] (DojoRat @ Feb. 25 2003,14:24)]The problem with massive armies is they required massive amounts of food, and carting to take it along the march. I can't comment on the reliability of the sources that have been cited but it sems like 50,000 actual warriors a side seems about right.

Also, we in the west see this battle now as a them vs. us affair but it was really just another power play (ok a big one)trying to fill the vacumn of the collasping western empire. As Rosacrux said there was no Roman army at this time. In fact Aetius' power base had previously been his strong relationship with the Huns and he relied on their mercenary muscle to prop up the west. I think he might of fostered with the huns as a youth as well, though I'm not positive about that.
You are right, Aetius was given as a hostage when he was younger to the Visigoths under Alaric. Later in his life he also breifly went into exile and lived with the Huns after being defeated by a rival. (all of this prior to Cataulanian fields)

Sainika

02-25-2003, 22:10

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Feb. 25 2003,23:05)]I can't comment on the numbers involved, as I only know the basic facts sorrounding the battle on the Cataulanian plains. But Rosacrux is definately right here. The Roman Empire(as well as the Roman army) had been in decline for well over a century by this point, and had in fact already fallen to the barbarian Alaric.
I don't argue about the state or roman empire of that time. Yes it was weak but not so weak as it became after that battle. When vandals conquered Rome and destroyed it - that was real weakness of former great world empire. Vandals had small forces but they did what nobody before them could do.
In times of Aetius Rome was given second chance. Aetius defended succesfully vs. germans. And he did have real roman army, not mercs It was not very big but Aetius had several legions including praetorians.
Invasion of huns was a threat not only for Rome but mainly for Visigoths and franks and for all tribes lived in Gaul and Iberia. That's why Aetius managed to form a big army and fight with huns. Huns did not plan to invade Italia, but Aetius decided to attack huns in advance. He made right decision as history showed later.

Sainika

02-25-2003, 22:23

Quote[/b] (DojoRat @ Feb. 25 2003,23:24)]The problem with massive armies is they required massive amounts of food, and carting to take it along the march. I can't comment on the reliability of the sources that have been cited but it sems like 50,000 actual warriors a side seems about right.
Accounts said the opposite http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Actually Atilla did not continue his invasion because of lack of food although he had real possibility to end roman convulsions http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif He planned to invade again later but his sudden death mixed everything.
As for food supply Gaul was very reach and developed province. It could feed up hordes of nomades. And it did. Aetius burned fields with wheat, killed cows etc - he tried to force huns to move back. This worked fine. If huns had only 50,000 men this maneuvre would be useless.

Hakonarson

02-25-2003, 22:44

I think you underestimate the amount of food an army requires, and over estimate the amount of food a "rich" province could produce in ancient times.

50,000 men also meant over 100,000 horses - the Huns used several remounts each, while there were many mounted soldiers in the various subjects too.

A horse requires 32 lbs of dry fodder (15kg) and 8 gallons (36 litres) of water per day, a man requires 2.5 lbs (1.2kg) of grain and 2 quarts (2.25 litres) of water per day.

For an army of 50000 men and 100000 horses that's 825,000 gallons of water daily - 3,712,500 litres.

It's also 62 tons of grain and 1500 tons of dry fodder.

For a campaign of any length this has to be carried by something - so you have to add in the horses (or bullocks) and men driving the wagons - even if it is only to storage depots but I'm not aware that the Huns used any form of pre-planned collection points for their supplies.

Those who believe there were half a million men on hte field at the time might like to consider how 10 times this amount would be assembled, stored and distributed among the 2 armies.

In fact 2 armies of 50,000 men each would've been huge for teh time - much larger than any armies seen in Europe since Adrianople, and much larger than any that would be seen for hundreds of years yet.

And why weren't ther eany Slavs in Attila's army? Probably because the Salvs at the time were all infantry, and weer all a long way from France - the subject tribes that Attila did use included a lot of horsemen, as well as some infantry, but all of them were basically neighbours to the Romans - many resided in France.

Rosacrux

02-25-2003, 22:48

Quote[/b] (Toda Nebuchadnezzar @ Feb. 25 2003,14:09)]Question: Were the Huns ancestors of the later Mongols. Both had the same style of fighting from horse back, both came from the plains, just the Huns a little earlier?
So did they Skythes, early Parthian, several hundreds of different Turkic tribes etc. etc. etc.

If I knew the correct answer to your question and had a way to prove it, I would be on track to become quite famous and prosperous.

But, no, I can't.

To provide some sort of reply: Most sources tell us that huns are not ancestors of the Mongols, and some go as far as to suggest they had nothing in common with them anyway.

The most credible facts seem to point out that the Huns were actually non-Altaic, so that rules out Turks and Mongols.

Some identify them with the Xsiong Nu the Chinese history has recorded, but even that is quite unproven.

The Huns seem to be one of those little mysteries of history... they appeared all of the sudden, made a great impact, laid the seed for the buildup of Europe in the next millenia (by driving the germanic and slavic tribes along their way, and by clearing the way for the Turkic tribes that followed) and then... vanished. Actually, they got assimilated into the local populations of central-eastern Europe, so it's safe to asume some peeps in that part of the world have some hunnic blood in their veins.

And, no, Huns are not the ancestors of the Hungarians. Those are the Magyars.

Sainika

02-25-2003, 23:28

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Feb. 26 2003,00:44)]I think you underestimate the amount of food an army requires, and over estimate the amount of food a "rich" province could produce in ancient times.

50,000 men also meant over 100,000 horses - the Huns used several remounts each, while there were many mounted soldiers in the various subjects too.

A horse requires 32 lbs of dry fodder (15kg) and 8 gallons (36 litres) of water per day, a man requires 2.5 lbs (1.2kg) of grain and 2 quarts (2.25 litres) of water per day.

For an army of 50000 men and 100000 horses that's 825,000 gallons of water daily - 3,712,500 litres.

It's also 62 tons of grain and 1500 tons of dry fodder.

For a campaign of any length this has to be carried by something - so you have to add in the horses (or bullocks) and men driving the wagons - even if it is only to storage depots but I'm not aware that the Huns used any form of pre-planned collection points for their supplies.

Those who believe there were half a million men on hte field at the time might like to consider how 10 times this amount would be assembled, stored and distributed among the 2 armies.

In fact 2 armies of 50,000 men each would've been huge for teh time - much larger than any armies seen in Europe since Adrianople, and much larger than any that would be seen for hundreds of years yet.

And why weren't ther eany Slavs in Attila's army? Probably because the Salvs at the time were all infantry, and weer all a long way from France - the subject tribes that Attila did use included a lot of horsemen, as well as some infantry, but all of them were basically neighbours to the Romans - many resided in France.
First of all huns army had a lot of infantry. Huns themselves were with horses, maybe some other steppe cavalrymen, but that is all. Germans, goths, slavs etc. fought on foot as infantry because they were infantry. So your estimation, Hakonarson, is wrong. You compare hunnic army with mongols but they were totally different. It is a common misunderstanding and for some time I thought the same.
Ration of ancient warrior was not so big as it is regarded from modern point of view. Horses were used as transport mainly because Atilla moved with women and children. Supply problem is just a fiction. Plus Atilla conquered very reach cities and towns in Gaul with enormous food reserves - everyone forget about it too.
Atilla's campaign lasted no so long to suffer from lack of supply and he turned back when winter fell.

Hakonarson

02-25-2003, 23:44

The rations I used were those calculated by Engles in his seminal 1978 work on the logistics of the Macedonian army - they ARE ancient ration allowances, not modern ones.

Many of the Goths fought on horseback, as did all of the Sciri, Taifali and some otehr tribes - certainly there weer many foot, but IO did say that in the first place.

I am not comparing Huns to Mongols - all steppe horse archers used multiple horses - the Mongols were the inheritors of this aspect of steppe life, not the inventors of it.

Adding the Hun women and non-combatants into the mix merely increases the amount of food and water required.

And certainly Atilla had the resources of many cities to cal upon - and yet even with that he could not sustain his campaign - or even a reasonable proportion of it.

I stand by my figures - they are factual and do not rely upon any interpretation or emotion.

redrooster

02-26-2003, 00:21

just a few more tidbits
an oxen cart carries apprx 1500lbs and mule carried 300lbs.
so going with harko's figures, it would be quite a combat train. and 1.2kgs of grain is a very modest estimate, as 1.2kg provides under 2000calories and a modern soldier( no figures for ancient male soldiers) needs on average 3000calories, 1.2 kg is sustainable for not very long periods.
but of course the huns could be very good foragers and we cannot discount the livestocks they brought along and the cities could have huge stashes of supplies but there is still a limit on how much the land could sustain.
i have seen a very convincing study(i go look for it) somewhere based on geological study and based on the resources persia had on hand(like 3000? supply ships) that the invasian of greece could only have involved 150 000 soldiers

Hakonarson

02-26-2003, 03:09

The Persian invasion of Greece was my next example - once I'd found hte figures for it (still looking&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Yes - the Persians had a huge fleet of ships - much more efficient at carriage than wagons & mules.

The Huns did pillage extensively - but they aslo burned an awful lot, and sat outside Orleans for a bit, having expected to be admitted but Aetius had got there first and forced the Alans to side with him.

It is of note that one of the reasons often given for Attila's withdrawl from Italy in 452 is that ther had been a famine in Nth Italy in hte previous year (451 - the year of hte Battle of Chalons) and the countryside was particularly impoverished and unable to support his much smaller army.

Sainika

02-26-2003, 17:41

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Feb. 26 2003,01:44)]The rations I used were those calculated by Engles in his seminal 1978 work on the logistics of the Macedonian army - they ARE ancient ration allowances, not modern ones.

Many of the Goths fought on horseback, as did all of the Sciri, Taifali and some otehr tribes - certainly there weer many foot, but IO did say that in the first place.

I am not comparing Huns to Mongols - all steppe horse archers used multiple horses - the Mongols were the inheritors of this aspect of steppe life, not the inventors of it.

Adding the Hun women and non-combatants into the mix merely increases the amount of food and water required.

And certainly Atilla had the resources of many cities to cal upon - and yet even with that he could not sustain his campaign - or even a reasonable proportion of it.

I stand by my figures - they are factual and do not rely upon any interpretation or emotion.
You rely on someone's counts so you are using Engles interpretation already http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
May be I'm too emotional but if I haven't any proofs I'd agree with you, Hako http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Iordan wrotes about 165 000 dead (217). I do believe him. And logical interpretations convince me more. You have only one counterproof - supply problem. But you do not take into account conquered cities' supllies. They had enough food and water to hold against enemy sieges for years. Also you do not take into account any techologies to reduce supplies sizes. Also you think that horses need dry fodder. But you completely forget about grass for instance. Or you think that all horses eat only dry fodder? And did Engles take this facts into account or not?
About water. That is a problem in steppes but not in Gaul. By the way tha main portion of water horses get with grass. And also do you really think that Atilla's men and Aetius men eat grain? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
If we have to estimate all human battles by used supply than we must say that in the battles on Somme river or Stalingrad, or Kursk, or Moscow or african campaign in WW2 the number of combatants were much smaller.
As I said previously such estimation as Engles one is rather very approximate and one can't rely on it as on Bible http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Hakonarson

02-26-2003, 22:23

Engles figures are not interpretation - they are factual - try running men and horses on less.

your dismissal of him as equivalent to the bible is a joke - especially when you then go and rely upon Jordane for your figures.

NO ONE counted the dead after the battle. Jordanes himself wrote in 580 AD, 130 years after the battle, copying earlier Gothic and maybe Greek historians who were not there either - his primary source was Cassiodorus, who wrote from 526-533 - no-one present at the battle was alive then either.

But even if they had been they wouldn't have known the numbers because NO ONE counted them

as for alternative food sources, such as grass - a horse requires 5 hours grazing on grass for every day it travels - so you can certainly cut down on the amount of fodder required, but only at the expense of speed.

Armies relying upon grazing could only move 5-10 miles a day, and they destroyed everything in their path so they couldn't stay in 1 place more than a day - the Hunnic army managed to sit outside Orleans for some period of time, so clearly it was not relying upon grazin.

what evidence do you have that the cities of Gaul had supplies "for years"?

Attila's men might not have eaten grain, but a lot of them would have eaten bread and biscuit - made from grain. Often the baking would be done on the same day the food was eaten and many armies carried millstones to grind their flour as they marched.

Even if they weer eating meat the meat stil had to be fed to get it to where the soldiers ate it, or, if dried, it had to be carried there by more animals......nothing happened without effort

The supply argument might e singlular, but it is a real consideration and one for which there is no coherent counterargument.

Your comparisons with WW1, etc are nonsense, because we know precisely how those huge armies were fed and watered, and the enormous efforts that were required to do so.

Indeed we know a great deal about many logistical methods through the ages, and how much effot Generals put into it - as teh old saying goes - Amateurs talk about troop numbers, professionals talk about logistics - this has ben true sinc ethe first 2 people got together to for an "army" - nothing happens in the military without food and water.

In contrast the case for the armies being particularly huge relies upon supposition and nothing more.
the nubmers given previously for the tribes joining each side are pure guesswork based upon no evidence whatsoever.

Sainika

02-26-2003, 23:10

Good call Hako http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Yes, I'm amateur not professional historian, BUT I love studing history and think that history will teach us a few lessons. You said right things but your evidences or mine - they are both based on interpretation of facts whether you like it or not. Remember that we thought about Troy as a legend written by Homer and only recently (in historic scale) we found out his poem described true things. So why not about battle on Catalaunian plains?

Yes, of course noone counted dead, but there is no point in this. You can count alives.
And my comparison with WW1 and WW2 is adequate. WE know exact numbers but for our succesors those numbers must be proved. Burn any memoires about WW1 - what numbers of combatants can you imagine? I doubt they will be the real ones.

You take logistics into the most important account but you underestimates the importance of logistics in ancient army and don't believe in ancient people, the development of their technologies. You said that Atilla's army couldn't have such a big supply. Why? It can't be because it can't be?
BTW do you have a link for these Engles survey? I'd like to read it. Its counts do not convince me but may be I don't see something? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Hakonarson

02-27-2003, 01:39

Engels wrote a book - the title & other deatils of which I included above - it's available on amazon.

If you go back and read carefully I've never actually said what size I think the armies were at Chalons - I did some simple math showing how much an army of 50,000 men and 100,000 horses might need to survive.

And then I said that for the armies to be 5-10 times this size they'd need 5-10 times this ammount of supply and where would they get it from?

But for the record - I believe that the armies were far more likely to have been around 50,000 than 250,000, and yes the problem of supply is the major factor that makes me favour that size - 50,000 men would ahve been the largest army in Europe for Hundreds of years - it's not mean feat to assemble such a force from relatively unsophisiticatd societies.

Catiline

02-28-2003, 16:00

There's virtually nothing historically useful in Homer apart from using it as a reference for some of the social structures in Archaic Greece. As history it's pretty much worse than useless. It's certainly the poshest write up a pirate raid ever got.

Herodotus was writing about 50 years after the Persian wars, there's no reason why he shouldn't have access to first hand evidence.

Rosacrux

02-28-2003, 16:21

Catiline and others

There is much dispute as to if Herodotus was a historian or a dreamer. I lend to the first and I believe he wasn't exaggerating too much when he wrote his history, about the Persian army size.

I don't believe that three million people came over from Asia to Greece, but I do believe that at least a force between 360.000 and 720.000 (with the latter being quite more sensible, if you consider the arguments and the facts - both those provided by Herodotus and by the Persian annals) men entered the Greek mainland.

This site (http://www.metrum.org/perwars/index.htm) has a very good analysis on the subject, uses all the available sources and provides with extremely interesting conclusions.

It's quite a read, so don't start it unless you have some time at your disposal.

Catiline

02-28-2003, 17:23

I'm inclined to lend a reasonable amount of credibility to Herodotus, though he does have to be taken with a hefty pinch of salt.

Sainika

02-28-2003, 19:49

Quote[/b] (Catiline @ Feb. 28 2003,18:00)]There's virtually nothing historically useful in Homer apart from using it as a reference for some of the social structures in Archaic Greece. As history it's pretty much worse than useless. It's certainly the poshest write up a pirate raid ever got.

Herodotus was writing about 50 years after the Persian wars, there's no reason why he shouldn't have access to first hand evidence.
That is not true. Shlimann read Homer's Iliada and began archaeological research right in the spot where Homer placed Troy. And he found it Noone believed in Homer's history except Shlimann. Nowadays a lot of modern historians looked for real facts in Homer's poems. It is an question of proper interpretation of words and myths.