Persian Numbers vs. Greeks...?

[Demequis]

I was watching tv the other day and there was this awesome program on the history channel called "The Rise and Fall of the Spartans." The hour I watched focused on the persian invasion, namely the battle at Thermopylae and the naval defeat at....I'm not sure...:-/ I forget the name of the Island, Salicus? Anyway...
they quoted the persians as having an army 200,000 strong, and they said that 60,000 were slaughtered in the naval battle.
I've seen numerous posts regarding the impossibile logistics of coordinating armies such as in mtw, and so these numbers seemed downright absurd. I mean...supporting 200,000 troops far away from home even today is a monumental task
How accurate are these numbers....I'm thinking that this is the way they were recorded in legend and were thus exaggerated maybe?

Thanks Sorry I'm not too clear about the time period, I think it was 500 bc, I only caught the first hour of the program.

[spmetla]

Erasing the past...

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (spmetla @ Mar. 04 2004,11:41)]Remeber that the Persians had naval superiorty until their defeat and could supply themselves like that.
Also remember that armies of the time had a tendancy to forrage the land they were occupying.

They also demanded tribute and supplies from small settlements, threatening to burn them to the ground and massacre everyone if they refused...

War really was a dirty business.

[Sjakihata]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Mar. 04 2004,14:16)]War really was a dirty business.
and it still is...


I think Herodot said the persians were 2-3 millions, however, that seems to be impossible. And remember the greater the number, the sweeter the victory.

200,000 would seem much more reasonable, maybe +/- 50,000

[rasoforos]

The persian empire was a huge and very very rich empire. Logistics was what they were really good at and maintaining large armies was their main advantage against their enemies...intimidation and not ability was their weapon, and they paid dearly when they met opponents who would fight no matter the odds. I do not think that a vast empire which could maintain itself would really have any problem to maintain an army 200k or even larger.
Concerning the 'far away; assumption. It is fundamentally wrong , the Persians were not far away , they were allready holding the west coasts of Asia Minor so they had actually allready maintained a presene in the hellenic space for several decades. In addition they had greek allies who were providing them with supplies plus they could loot fertile places like the plains of Macedonia and Thessaly...

[Sjakihata]

That coast, what was the empire they fought there? I forgot http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

On the subject, what is the pelleponesian war?

[Hurin_Rules]

I still think the number is too high.

Why? Look at the Romans. The largest armies they every fielded were still under 100,000, and they had an empire as large and rich as that of the Persians. In fact, they had better roads and probably more money.

The Persian army was surely huge for its time, but 200,000? I would say maybe 100,000-150,000.

[Longshanks]

I agree with Hurin. I personally don't think the Persian army exceeded 150,000 and was probably closer to 100,000. Regardless, they still had numerical superiority over their Greek opponents.

[Sjakihata]

The Persion Empire was, as already stated by rasforos, very rich. Both monetary and natural ressources. They had a gigantic flotilla and the Athens & Spartans had almost no ships. Therefore they could easily transport troops and supplies around, heck they could even build a bridge with ship, not disturped by the greeks.

I think their total army was much bigger than 200.000, but it sounds reasonable that they sent forth so many troops to conquer the greek lands.

[spmetla]

Erasing the past...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The pelleponesian war was between Athens and Sparta for the control Greece.

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Mar. 04 2004,15:28)]I still think the number is too high.

Why? Look at the Romans. The largest armies they every fielded were still under 100,000, and they had an empire as large and rich as that of the Persians. In fact, they had better roads and probably more money.

The Persian army was surely huge for its time, but 200,000? I would say maybe 100,000-150,000.
The roman strategy was not to intimidate opponents with numbers. They were based on strategy and tactics. On the other hand the Persian empire was based in strength of numbers and their very good logistics/communication support. As a result you cannot compare the two empires , not only from the above but also from the populations they controlled...
The Persians were no fools , they knew they would not beat the greek war machine on equal numbers. Their strategy was based on intimidation of numbers and a general showoff of their vast army (like the case when persians marching next to eachother walked from one side of Evoia to the other to make sure everyone is captured).

[spmetla]

Erasing the past...

[Sjakihata]

He just answered my question.

[Knight Keimo]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Mar. 05 2004,04:22)]
Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Mar. 04 2004,15:28)]I still think the number is too high.

Why? Look at the Romans. The largest armies they every fielded were still under 100,000, and they had an empire as large and rich as that of the Persians. In fact, they had better roads and probably more money.

The Persian army was surely huge for its time, but 200,000? I would say maybe 100,000-150,000.
The roman strategy was not to intimidate opponents with numbers. They were based on strategy and tactics. On the other hand the Persian empire was based in strength of numbers and their very good logistics/communication support. As a result you cannot compare the two empires , not only from the above but also from the populations they controlled...
The Persians were no fools , they knew they would not beat the greek war machine on equal numbers. Their strategy was based on intimidation of numbers and a general showoff of their vast army (like the case when persians marching next to eachother walked from one side of Evoia to the other to make sure everyone is captured).
BTW Rasoforos, do you know how many men Romans mobilized for battle of Catalaunian Fields against the Huns?
And how about casualties on both sides, Romans-Goths and Huns? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

Just to be curious..

[Crash]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Mar. 05 2004,04:22)]
The roman strategy was not to intimidate opponents with numbers. They were based on strategy and tactics.

Very true - any decent MTW player knows better than to be intimidated by numbers if you have a good general, quality units, and favorable terrain.

[A.Saturnus]

Should be Monastery

[Rosacrux]

I hear opinions, whether a huge army could be supported, whether the logistic support could have been feasible and other stuff like that.

Opinions are good, but everybody has got one (just as the old Dirty Harry saying goes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ).

So, here are some facts that I posted over at the "Greatest battle of all times" thread. I hate to quote myself, but I'd hate to write over the same stuff, so I am just quoting myself.


Quote[/b] ]- The Persian emperor at the time would not travel under any circumstances to run a campaign of conquest without a full imperial army, and that is 300.000 footmen and 60.000 cavalry (360.000 men in total). In many instances (conquest of a strong nation) they would mobilize two imperial armies, bringing the total up to 720.000 men.


- The Persian nobles, officers and elites would not travel on a long expedition without taking with them their wives, servants and others. That means several thousand of Xerxes' men had a following of 3-10 people each. Not to mention the standard followers of each army (hookers, merchants etc. etc.).

- If one reads the descriptions of how Xerxes organized his logistic support, one would surely admit that the sheer size of that effort was accustomed to a humangous army. Hundreds of depots were constructed in northern Greece alone and a huge fleet of 800-1000 merchant ships were shipping in everyday provisions from the huge depots in Ionia.

- The Persian, according to each and every account, had more than 1600-1800 ships with them - the warships being about 700-800. If you know a bit about ancient ship business, you should know that a warship needs lots of people to move. 120 is the smallest number (for a petty bireme) and the great Phoenician triremes of the time (the bulk of the Persian naval force) took about 200 men only for rowing. And of course there were several "marines" aboard. So, 150 men in average, at least. Do the math: 800X150=120.000.

- The Persian empire at the time had - according to the historians - a population between the 21 and 25 million people. Greece (from Thessaly downwards) had circa 1 million. Since the Greeks managed to put together for the battle at Plateaes a force of 100.000 men (I haven't seen anyone doubting that number) what makes you think the 20-25 times bigger Persian empire couldn't send at least a million or two?

Perhaps Herodotus is exaggerating (btw he is not talking about 5 mi. - half that numbers comes up if you do his math) but not vastly. I'd say that the fighting force was anywhere between 360.000 and 720.000 men, while the accompanying horde of wives, mistresses, servants, whores, merchants would add 1/3 of that number on the top of it. Plus, if you add the ship crews (not only the 120.000 of the warships but also those of the merchant ships) the numbers grows even more.

So, I'd say the whole Persian force was between 650.000 and 1 mi. people (depending if you pick 360K or 720K as the main fighting force).

So, Platees should qualify for largest ancient western battle, considering that the Greeks only had about 100.000 men - presumably, Mardonios had at least the same number himself. Probably many more.

[Hurin_Rules]

Who gives the figure of 100,000 for the Greeks at Platea? Is it a contemporary or modern estimate? That also seems high to me.

[The Wizard]

Dammit. I had this gigantic long post about Persian numbers, supplies and strategy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

*gives up*

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Mar. 06 2004,14:14)]Who gives the figure of 100,000 for the Greeks at Platea? Is it a contemporary or modern estimate? That also seems high to me.
Herodotus does so and this is the one and only number he presents that has not been doubted by the revisionist historians of the past two centuries.

He talks about 45.000 hoplites, "some" cavalry" and 50.000+ "psiloi" and other auxilliaries. He puts down an account of the number of hoplites contributed in this army by every city state, too.

[makkyo]

I saw the same program as well. The Persian numbers were estimated as somewhere around one or two million men. These observations were made by the greeks and are believed to be largely inflated. In most likelyhood the Persians had a land force from 100,000- 200,000 men. In the batlle of Salamis Bay, the Persians had several hundred more ships but were defeated by the larger Greek ships (thanks to Themistocles) and their knowledge of the Agean waterways.

And also at the time the Persian wars began, Darius the First didn't even know who the Greeks where. Before the Persian wars Greece was just some backwater place of no significance but within two generations later was able to conquor the entire Persian Empire (From India to Turkey)

[The Wizard]

Actually, makkyo, Persian ships were larger, and squeezed into tight waterways, allowing the smaller, more nimble Greek ships, who had a greater knowledge of sea combat and such, to defeat the cumbersome Persian ships.



~Wiz

[biguth dickuth]

I really wanted to post something here (my opinion http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-oops.gif ) but then comes Rosacrux with his Dirty Harry quote and his load of facts and saves the day before me

LOL I'm just kidding of course (and probably spamming in order to increase my post-count).
I'm glad you provided this info Rosacrux because it's expected by most people to know best the history of their own country.

I have a question though. How many where the spartans in the battle of Plataees? I ask that because, from what i know, it was them who charged first and smashed the persian left flank almost alone (while the athenians and others were having serious trouble in the greek left flank). Also, how did the evade any flanking cavalry attack by the persians?

[Rosacrux]

Hi Biguth http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

The Spartan force at Platea was not the whole Spartan homii contigent, because lots were sent to Mycale, where the second sound defeat of the Persian took place.

The Spartan hoplites (homii) at Platea must've been about 8.000 - I'll have to dig up my copy of Herodotus to state a more cartain number.

For those interested, this page (http://www.metrum.org/perwars/persize.htm) presents a rather concrete argument for the size of the Persian force. He stays in the upper side of my numbers and even moreso, but I think his reason is the interesting point (the numbers can be questioned, of course).

[The Wizard]

Ok, I will now repost what I had written up a few days ago.

Persian numbers have oft been blown up extentially by "contemporary" historians such as Herodotus. This is logical, since he was a Greek, proud of the victory of course, and also because he was born after the war had ended, and not just a few years.

We can, today, through many records of scribes of Archaemenid kings, make a reasonable accurate depiction of true Persian numbers. This because every Great King from Cyrus and on had their scribes record every campaign and battle that the empire ever took part in.

Thus, we can bring back Xerxes' supposed 3,000,000 men (the maximum number ever proposed) to 70,000 fighting men (with an equal number of attendants, a fact that Herodotus fails to note) and 9,000 horsemen. A - not very much - oversized Imperial army, as the conquest of Greece was just another campaign for the Persians.

Unlike the Greeks. Knowing the power and size of the Persian empire, they amassed as much troops as they could get. Apparently - I am not as knowledgeable about Greeks as Rosacrux - they managed to raise roughly 100,000 men.

Now, two reasonably equally matched forces, in numbers at least. Now it is easy to explain a Persian loss. They were facing a large number of hoplites, heavily armoured and a force against which Persian tactics of harassing and light(er) infantry did not work even half as well as it did against more easternly forces. With no shock cavalry and no heavy infantry, the Greeks, aided by Militiades' bright idea of running up to them, limiting the time the Persians had to shower them with arrows, didn't have an all to hard time with the Persians. Albeit their psiloi could not have done all that much against the Persian forces, for this was the type of army they were used to facing.



~Wiz

[Ironside]

For those interested, this page presents a rather concrete argument for the size of the Persian force


Citera[/b] ]why should the Greeks have avoided any major military engagement on land for almost two years

My God, how many people in the Persian army must have died if it was active in 2 years. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

To point out, an army is like a city with very poor sanitation systems and it took a long time to get 100.000 inhabitants in a Europeian city without sewers and simular.

[The Wizard]

[cough] May I remind you that Persian/Greek (especially Persian) forms of sanitation were a lot better than medieval European ones?

The army was well supplied, especially when inside the empire.



~Wiz

[Rosacrux]

The Wizard

In the last posts of mine I presented a solid argument of why numbers like 70K or 100K or anything close to that for the Persians are ludicrous and without any evidential support - they do not stand the test of logic and reason, and are contrary to every ancient source.

Take a look at my first post and then take a peek at the source I have provided.

AFAIK there are no accounts on the Persian side on how many men they had mobilized to get into Greece.

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] (The Wizard @ Mar. 09 2004,11:43)][cough] May I remind you that Persian/Greek (especially Persian) forms of sanitation were a lot better than medieval European ones?

The army was well supplied, especially when inside the empire.



~Wiz
[cough] May I remind you that armies don't usually digs sewers everywhere they go http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif and every person in this army need to pee and shit somewhere.

And if you keep a large number of people close to eachother, then you're gonna have some problems with diseases (shools for example).

Even if they had a lot better sanitation then the Medieval Europeians, thier losses would still be substansial, epecially if they are on longer campaigns.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Mar. 10 2004,06:57)]The Wizard

In the last posts of mine I presented a solid argument of why numbers like 70K or 100K or anything close to that for the Persians are ludicrous and without any evidential support - they do not stand the test of logic and reason, and are contrary to every ancient source.

Take a look at my first post and then take a peek at the source I have provided.

AFAIK there are no accounts on the Persian side on how many men they had mobilized to get into Greece.
Read this (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/achaemenids/achaemenid_army.php). Written by Persian experts, 'nuff said I would say.



~Wiz

[Rosacrux]

A source that states no sources, quotes nobody and nothing, does not provide any evidence but just states bluntly that


Quote[/b] ]The size of the imperial army was never as large as the Greeks exaggerated. Careful examination of topography, logistics, organization of the spada, and official battle orders enable historians to arrive at reasonable figures for Iranian forces. Thus, Xerxes' 3,000,000 fighting men or 2,641,610 soldiers and an equal number of attendants are reduced to 70,000 infantry and 9,000 horsemen; the 900,000-strong army of Artaxerxes II at Cunaxa was in reality no more than 40,000, and the 1,040,000 soldiers of Darius III at Gaugamela is brought down to 34,000 cavalry and some infantry. Unfortunately, historians have seldom paid attention to these overstatements, accordingly, their judgements of Iranian tactics, strategy, and motives have been impaired by faulty calculations.

is quite unreliable. In my link you can read the names of two dozen renowned historians. In your source there is not even a vague reasoning - nothing, just a nebulous statement about "careful examination of topography" bla bla bla.

Please, if you are trying to refute a reasonable argument and historical data and renowned historians, provide some yourself, not a link of nationalistic site who seeks to prove that the Persian were not as bad or incompetent as depicted by the history of their clashes with the Greeks.

I repeat: There are no accounts on the Persian side of how many men they mobilized against Greece. The standard Imperial army was 360.000 men as all ancient sources tell us. And the basic organization unit of the Persian army was 10.000 men. Geesh, that's elementary history.

And that's nuff said... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Kalle]

Hello all, i just wanna say sumthin about the so called "facts" provided in this topic and the "Geesh, that's elementary history."

I took a little peek at ur page Rosacrux and the sources used ... well let me put them here so all can see


Quote[/b] ]
49. Gobineau, Histoire des Perses, Vol. II, p. 191.

50. "Some Observations on the Persian Wars," The Journal of Hellenic Studies, XXII (1902), pp. 294ff.

51. G. B. Grundy, The Great Persian War (London, 1901), p.

52. H. Delbrueck, Die Perserkriege und die Burgunderkriege (Berlin, 1887), p. 164.

53. Geschichte des Alterthums, Vol. III (Stuttgart, 1901), p. 377.

54. Hans Delbrueck, Geschichte der Kriegskunst Vol. I (Berlin, 1920), p. 106.


Eduard Meyer, op. cit., p. 374f.

56. Ernst Obst, Der Feldzug des Xerxes in| Klio, Beiheft |12 (Leipzig, 1914), p. 88.

57. W. W. Tarn, "The Fleet of Xerxes," The Journal of Hellenic Studies 28 (1908), p. 208 n.


J. B. Bury, History of Greece third ed. (London, 1963), p. 269. Cf. Munro, op. cit. (1902), pp. 296f.; Macan, Herodotus, The Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Books, (London, 1908), Vol. II, p. 164.
59. R. Cohen, La Grece et l'hellenization du monde antique (Paris, 1934), p. 164. R. von Fischer, "Das Zahlenproblem in Perserkriege 480-479 v. Chr." Klio, N. F., vol. VII, pp. 289ff.

60. Trattato di storia greca, fourth ed. (Rome, 1961), p. 212.

61. Griechische Geschichte, ninth ed. (Munich, 1962), p. 140.

62. Griechische Geschichte, vol. I (1951), p. 253.

63. George Rawlinson, History of Herodotus (New York, 1880), p. 26.

64. J. B. Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians (London, 1908).


As is clearly visible nothing in this litterature is up to date. Most of it is about 100 years old the rest about 50 years old. (and some has no date) Not many knows the names of many 100 year old historians and not many would accept what they say about numbers in the persian army. Thus it is not enough to base a certain statement on what they say - now that is elementary history. Also i could find no one that had the responsibility of the information on ur link, as far as i know u can be the creator of that page...


Without having digged into litterature on the specific topic i made a quick check in my, if compared to ur sources, very new book. It was the base book used in my universitystudies in history presenting the overview of human history.



Quote[/b] ]
Napoleon´s invasion of Russia began in June 1812 with a force that eventually numbered 600,000, probably the largest force yet assembled in a single army.


Mckay, John P., Hill, Bennet D. and Buckler, John, A history of world societies, fourth edition, Boston, cop. 1996, page 763

A quick add on the authors is that they are all professors in history and John Buckler is professor of GREEK history at the university of Illinois. (at least at the time this book was printed) So one would guess he would protest at the quote i presented above if persian armies had been bigger. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Somewhere in this topic someone also say sanitation would be a problem and some one argues against it. Well up until very modern days sanitation and illness was the main danger in armies, battles and combat didnt kill nearly as many men as did poor hygien, hostile environment and illness. I would love for someone to present evidence of perisan logistics and infrastructure that enable them to support an army counting lets say half a million men (and add to that civilians that follow the army).

This was a thing that could not be done until modern day society.

Kalle

[Rosacrux]

Do you refute the data Polyvious and others provide about the battle at Cannae? That Carthage, a city that numbered by that time 100.000 people, head of an extremely loose merkantile "empire" that numbered less than 2 mi. people, managed to gather an army of 50.000 mercenaries and march them through a really unimaginable route, without even the slightest notion of provisions, logistics, grain depots and set cattle (all the prepearations Xerxes had made), through hostile territory, all the way inside the heart of the Italian peninsula, to face the Romans in Cannae.

The Romans who faced the Carthagenian force a couple of years earlier and lost as many as 20.000 men in two battles, managed to gather a host of 50.000 Roman soldiers, send 40.000 of them along with 40.000 allies, to Cannae, to meet Hannibal and his army of 50.000. Even after their sound defeat and the death of more than 35.000 Romans (and equal number of allies) in Cannae, the Romans still had 35.000 men under arms. That means (easy math) that Rome had called under arms (not including the allies) 90.000 men in less than 4 years. And all that, coming from a city that numbered at the time less than 300.000 people (that's the pool the Roman drew the more than 90.000 men in a 4-year period).

Yet, nobody, and I mean nobody, even doubts those numbers. They seem absolutely normal. Forgetting that supporting a mercenary army of a size of 50.000 for years on the battlefield, requires an unimaginable amount of money. Forgetting the huge logistic problems a force of that size marching such a huge distance and without the slightiest of preparation, would face. Forgetting that there is no bloody way of drafting 90.000 men from a 250.000 or 300K or 400K population - no bloody way, unless you draft 12-year olds and retirees and women.

Yet, everybody's favorite sport is to refute the numbers given for the Persian... despite all the evidence that suggests otherwise.

Despite the fact that Xerxes drew from a pool of 25 million people, the greatest empire of the times. Despite the fact that the wealth of the Persian empire at its peak was that of Rome, Carthage and Greece combined and multiplied by 30. Despite the fact that the Persian fleet bringing in provisions everyday was in the several hundreds, that the warfleet was that of the Ionian, Karian and Lykian cities, combined with that of the Phoenician city states and Egypt. Despite the fact that there were three years of preparations throughout all the helladic area the Persians commanded (Macedonia, part of Thessaly, Thrace, Ionia), that the hugest canal constructed until the 17th century AD has been digged in mount Athos to avoid the stormy sea, despite the fact that it took almost a year to ammass the army in the first place and that the distance from Hellespont to Athens is a little over a thousand and a hundred kilometers - 1/10th of the distance Hannibal army has walked http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif . And despite all the other data and facts presented by various high esteemed historians.

No, why actually listen to logic and the sources? Let's just trash them all, them Greeks are just big fat liars http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-zzz.gif

GAH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[redrooster]

Quote[/b] (Kalle @ Mar. 11 2004,18:35)]As is clearly visible nothing in this litterature is up to date. Most of it is about 100 years old the rest about 50 years old. (and some has no date) Not many knows the names of many 100 year old historians and not many would accept what they say about numbers in the persian army. Thus it is not enough to base a certain statement on what they say - now that is elementary history. Also i could find no one that had the responsibility of the information on ur link, as far as i know u can be the creator of that page...
Arn't we becoming too cynical here.
What has the age of a publication has to do with its authority and validity.
If i had been well research, made logical conclusions, then i would be hard to refute.
If i was a layman chancing upon this thread with no knowledge of history, i would take rosacrux's side in this argument since he had presented a good case and took the trouble to provide sources.
Anyway it would be unfair to discount sources due to their age while you only tried to validate your claim with one publication whose authority on the subject is not clear and the statement on the army of 600,00 was not a pointed refernce at the size of xerxes army.

[Kalle]

If studying the topic carefully u will find that me being cynical or hard or whatever is only a response to cynical remarks made by those who say they provide "facts".

There is nothing wrong with using old sources, what could we learn from history without doing so? But to say something is a fact and then support this with a list of old historians is another thing. When writing history one is allways affected by the time and the values of that time in which u live so adding some newer litterature that supports ones argument is a very valid demand.

The science of history changes. Not very long ago ancient greece was viewed as a society whos economy was slavebased, now adays the prevailing view is that slavery was a part of the economy but the base was the free farmers. What we know about history changes and interpretations of sources changes.

As for the lone qoute and source i used in my first post i know very well that it alone is not enough to decide this matter, but it was a very fast and easy way to show that what some say are "elementary historical facts" indeed are not. I can bet my ass that if i go to the library and do a real litteraturesearch on this topic i will come up with plenty of others, very well known historians that does no share Rosacrux view of "facts" in this matter.

I dont really know what the purpose is with ur last post Rosacrux other then it might be to show u believe to strict in numbers presented. The counting of people in cities and countries is something that is very hard and not all countries can do more then estimations of their populations even today. But here u are knowing the exact numbers in every army and city some 2000 years ago http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif (not saying i think they all are wrong)

And when u say nobody doubts those numbers- do u want me to believe that u know about all historians and other experts not only those that were active 100 years ago but also today? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Let me end with showing what some think is a fact;


Quote[/b] ]
Despite the fact that the wealth of the Persian empire at its peak was that of Rome, Carthage and Greece combined and multiplied by 30.


First of all let me just say that this is no fact, no matter how hard u try u can never prove this to me. It can be an assumption, an estimation or simply and probably a statement u make, but a fact? no way.

Secondly, precisely as those u critizise, implying they basically know nothing, u do not provide any source to make this statement valid. But maybe its elementary history? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Kalle

[Rosacrux]

Kalle, you don't have an argument, you are merely trolling. Under that light, unless you provide an argument or a counter-argument to mine (both should do) I won't waste any more typing.

[Sjakihata]

I agree with Kalle on the subject about old historians. I'm in highschool now (you can call it elementary if you like Rosa), and 2 years ago we learned that the period in which historians lived, was very important concerning his views on history.

Let's settle with a compromise? The army was somewhere between 70,000 - 2,000,000.

Right, now don't go mad at each other http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[The Wizard]

No hard feelings, and just a little question before we continue our argument. Do you rely on Greek historians to become knowledgeable on Persian numbers?

Edit::

About Persian logistics.

While within the empire, Persian armies marched along the so-called "Royal Road", the backbone of the empire and the reason for the fact that Darius and Xerxes knew about the latest developments within a week (while residing in either Susa, Ecbatana, Persepolis or Babylon).

Along this highway, there were stragetically placed warehouses containing supplies for an army. This made a Persian army within the borders of the empire easily suppliable, although they still moved quite slow because of the long train of attendants.

Outside the borders of the empire, supplies were provided by, as Rosacrux stated, shipping and supply lines. The latter making the army even slower.

Personally I do not think Persian armies suffered as much from disease and other problems as did medieval European armies.



~Wiz

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ Mar. 11 2004,13:51)]No hard feelings, and just a little question before we continue our argument. Do you rely on Greek historians to become knowledgeable on Persian numbers?
As long as I am concearned, Herodotos is named "father of history" for a reason: there are no contemporary Persian historians or any other historians for that matter.

And modern Persian historian, some of them at least, would be happy to dismiss the numbers given by Herotodos on simply nationalistic pride grounds. Modern Greek historians don't seem really inclined with the subject.


Quote[/b] ]
Outside the borders of the empire, supplies were provided by, as Rosacrux stated, shipping and supply lines. The latter making the army even slower.

One minor point many seem to overlook: The Persian empire by Xerxes time included - practically - Macedonia and a part of Thessaly.

Thus, from the end of the Persian territory to Athens, it's less than 400 kilometers. Even back then 400 KM was not anything close to a "huge march", wouldn't you agree?

What about them logistics problems under that light?

[The Wizard]

Fill me in if I'm wrong, but the Ionian League included cities from Miletos to Byzantion. Darius lost all those cities, but I suppose he regained them. Did he regain his territory to the south of the Danube, where he fought "Scythians", as Persian scribes record it?

And the Royal Road stretched from Sardis to Bactra (roughly). After that the magazines and good roads stopped, as far as my knowledge stretches. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

My problem with Herodotus on Persian numbers in the "Persian Wars" (or "Greek Wars", if you were a Persian, I guess) is the following: he was a Greek, born after "the day Xerxes came to Marathon". He gives us a good insight on the happenings and cultures of the day, even going as far as describing Assyria. Yet, how can you rely on a Greek, one of a people who dispised Persians, one of a people which were very proud of their victory over this massive empire, the superpower of its day, to give you the exact, undisputable numbers of Persian armies? I'm not saying he was completely wrong, I'm not even saying he was very far off, but I, for one, do not rely on him fully to know of Persian numbers.

Rather, I would rely on scribes of the Achaemenid court. They, supposedly, recorded every campaign of the nation since Cyrus. Now, after Alexander sacked the Persian capitals, not much of those records would have survived, but some have. I'm not very knowledgeable on these accounts, if I have to be truthful, but there appear to be some of them left, and they would provide a better insight into Persian warfare than Herodotus (and later historians of the iron age, who based themselves on Herodotus, such as Polybius).

Oh, and the Persian Wars were expensive for the Persians, so much that, reportedly, Xerxes had to take the huge golden statue of Bel-Marduk, patron of Babylon and principal god of the 65,000 or so of the Babylonians, and smelt it to pay for his war. That says something about how much money it was costing them. Logical, if you take a look at the huge armies they used to campaign. Be it 70,000 or 300,000, that's a huge number for a regular army of the day.



~Wiz

[Sjakihata]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Mar. 12 2004,08:59)]And modern Persian historian, some of them at least, would be happy to dismiss the numbers given by Herotodos on simply nationalistic pride grounds. Modern Greek historians don't seem really inclined with the subject.
Concerning nationalistic pride, would that not apply to the greek historians as well? The more the persian numbers, the better their victory was?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Spmleta I know this thread is about the war with Persia but if you look back a few posts before mine you will notice that Sjakihata asked what was the Pelleponesian war http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Longshanks]

Many historians were of the opinion that Herodotus' numbers were laughable and invented by him, so I don't think it is elementary history that the Persians invaded Greece with several hundred thousand men.

[Rosacrux]

Herodotus speaks of 2.5 million men. 1.7 fighting men and the rest baggegers, families, merchants, servants etc.

Nobody would accept those numbers - not because they cannot be explained but because they are way off what any country of the time could produce, even a mighty empire like Persia.

But those numbers are not that far off as we selectively seem to accept.

Why, for instance, do we doubt Herodotus and not Polybius? Both were Greeks, after all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Why do we take several monstruus descriptions and numbers (the 180.000 Gauls Caesar faced, for instance - fragmented little tribes with little or no ties between them, half of them already bribed by the Romans anyway, and they ammass 180.000 men to fight Caesar? How? With what kind of logistic support?) for granted and don't do the same for Herodotus?

That is one side. The other is this: Herotodus has given an enormous wealth of information, which is regarded highly and provides a more than modest account for most of the cultures he met and described - scholars use him as a primary source of great importance even nowadays.

And in the same time we consider his numbers given for the Persian Wars pure fantasy? No, sorry, it doesn't work this way. Either you accept his whole work and try to find the truth between the lines, or you dismiss his whole work as pure fantasy and move on.

In the second occasion, the problem is that there are no alternatives to Herodotus. He is, you see, the first historian... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Sjakihata @ Mar. 12 2004,11:30)]
Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Mar. 12 2004,08:59)]And modern Persian historian, some of them at least, would be happy to dismiss the numbers given by Herotodos on simply nationalistic pride grounds. Modern Greek historians don't seem really inclined with the subject.
Concerning nationalistic pride, would that not apply to the greek historians as well? The more the persian numbers, the better their victory was?
Greeks nowadays are mostly past over nationalism. And our scholars for sure. Persian, ah, well, have a generation or two ahead of them to go over nationalism themselves. Maybe even more. And few Greek historians take the time to dig the times of the Persian wars anymore - there is such an extensive bibliography that covers almost everything on the matter, that it would be considered counterproductive to add more into the pile.

[Sjakihata]

That sounds not too convincing to me, how can you say the Greeks are past nationalism, when the Persians are not?

Facts... ?

[Rosacrux]

I am certainly not trying to convince you of anything, why should I? If you wish to be convinced, come and live a month to Greece and then spend another month in Persia. Then you can tell for yourself.

BAH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Sjakihata]

Perhaps I will :D if I can stay at your place?

[The Wizard]

I don't think the muslim theocracy of Iran likes the memory of Persia in any form. :\



~Wiz

[Kalle]

Quote[/b] ]Kalle, you don't have an argument, you are merely trolling. Under that light, unless you provide an argument or a counter-argument to mine (both should do) I won't waste any more typing.

Well since it seems it is not possible for you to follow a simple reasoning and not possible for you to see the weak spots and contradictions in your own posts I found myself inclined to make matters easier for you, and I sure hope you will thank me for it since it cost me some hours work - a visit to the library + literature search + examination of this literature + the writing of this post. Things I would normally charge money for but what the heck, ill do it for free for you, just remember to thank me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

On a side note when I say examination of the literature it does not mean I studied every book that turned up in my search and it does not mean that I read every page of the books I choose, I have no time for that. I look at indexes, prefaces, source-discussions and the pages that directly deal with the topic at hand. Literature was picked at "random", and could have defended what you claim is the absolute truth (Herodotos and especially his numbers of Persians at Platai) or attack it, thus it is not my fault it seems all of them are somewhat critical to Herodotos numbers at Platai... One thing I did do was make an effort to pick newer literature on the subject, I am sure you will find this “counterproductive” though but you are probably and hopefully alone having that view.

Ill make some quotes and/or summaries from the books to show that your view on this matter (the Persian numbers at Platai) is not the absolute truth and not the only way to read Herodotos. I will also, of course, provide you with the data needed to find the books, summaries and quotes if you all want to check them out.

And please have in mind that I consider Herodotos a very valid and important source to history but this does not make all he say true.

Literature;

Balcer, Jack, Martin, The conquest of the Greeks 545-450 BC, ISSN 0936-8663, ISBN 3-87940-489-5, Konstanz, 1995

Green, Peter, The Greco-Persian wars, ISBN 0-520-20573-1 or 0-520-20313-5, Berkely and Los Angeles California, London, England, 1996

Lazenby, J.F., The defence of Greece 490-479 B.C., Warminster, 1993

Lets start with Lazenby. In the chapter “Evidence” he discusses the evidence available for studying the Greco-Persian wars and thus he mainly discuss Herodotos and he supports and defends Herodotos in almost every aspect. But there are some critics aimed at him, for instance his keen interest in the abilities of oracles the truth in prophecies and omens and Gods interfering in human events, also his ability as a military historian is questioned. However Lazenby finds ways of defending Herodotos in these aspects aswell. (Lazenby p.1-16)

In spite of Lazenbys strong defence of Herodotos he strongly questions the numbers Herodotos gives for the Persian army at the battle of Platai;

According to Herodotos the Asiatic troops under Mardonius numbered 300.000 infantry supported by 50.000 greek infantry (the number 50000 is a guess made by Herodotos), no numbers for cavalry are given. Using the size of the stockade that Herodotos describes Lazenby estimates the Persian total number (including greek allies) to about 90000 – 100000 men, this number comes from comparing the stockade to the numbers comparable roman stockades could hold. (Lazenby p. 227-228)

Let us now turn to Green. Green strongly opposes Lazenbys view in the introduction and among other things says;

“In his opening chapter on the evidence, Lazenby writes: ´It seems almost always legitimate to reject the secondary sources when they conflict with Herodotos.´ But the fact that Herodotos is the prime early source by no means sanctions this kind of rule-of-thumb treatment..... In every case we have to use our reason and historical judgement to sort the true from false (or more often, the plausible from the fatuous): there are no generic short cuts.” (Green p. xxi-xxii)

Green goes on saying; “No one would argue that Herodotos did not contain errors and inconsistencies” (ibid xxii – ibid means same source as above) Well, Green is wrong here I guess since the great historian Rosacrux does not agree with this :p.

Now lets see what Green says about the numbers at Platai...

“Herodotos gives no individual figures for Persian units, and his overall totals are highly suspect. The estimates given here have been worked out on the basis of figures arrived at earlier in this narrative [see above, pp 211 and 229], according to which Mardonius`s total Persian forces numbered 30,000, and his various Greek allies a further 20,000+. Out of this total (50,000+) the cavalry, both Persian and Greek, perhaps accounted for one-fifth......” (Green p. 249)

The estimates he talk of is based on the theory that the Greeks misinterpreted the Persian chiliarch (1000 men) for myriarch (10.000 men) thus all figures derived from Persian sources were automatically multiplied by ten. He also refers to military experts having examined the area geographically and their conclusion that the area and rout could not support the numbers Herodotos speaks of. Green p. 58-59 and 211

Let us now finally see what Balcer has to say on this matter;

He also holds a critical view to Herodotos, a critical view does not mean he considers Herodotos no good. He compares ancient Persian and Near Eastern materials with the Greek sources.

“When confronted with opposing or inconsistent views in the evidence, we must consider each case on its own merits. For example, Herodotos claimed that the Persians within the Achaemenid Empire remained without taxation, yet Persian inscriptions indicate that they were taxed. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the Achaemenid kings taxed their ethnic Persians. This approach challenges earlier methodology that accepted the primacy of the Greek texts, and thus contributes to an entire range of new understandings and insights into the Persian conquest of the Greeks from 545 to 479 B.C. and thereafter.” (Balcer p. 16-17)

Regarding the numbers at Platai Balcer only says (might be more somewhere in the book);

“...Herodotos number of 300.000 we suspect false.” (Balcer p. 270)

He goes on;

“With difficulty, Herodotos struggled to weave a plausible report of the event two to three generations before his time.” (Balcer p. 288)

Hopefully you will understand this post better then the common sence + elementary history posts I made earlier. It is elementary history that every source u use when writing history must be discussed and examined critically whether it is inscriptions on walls, letters and journals, statistics of different kinds or other historians such as Herodotos. In fact this is one of the most important skills to have for anyone wanting to be a historian.

If you still don’t understand, well then, let me quote Arnold; Ill be back...

Cheers Kalle

[Kalle]

It seems i get no thanks :( but then again i didnt really count on gettin it :P

I have been busy readin in some other topics what you write Rosacrux;

FDR being the most immoral leader responsible for the war in the pacific and all is part of his grand scheme to dominate the world.

This is plain silly.

Add to this all you write about Stalin. Somewhere you said that about 90% of the worlds historians agree that he cant be blamed for more then maybe 2 millions dead of which most died cuase of famine in the Ukraine.

This is obvious lying, maybe not the famine part but when you as usual try to be the spokesman for the historians in the world.... Id bet my last cent most of the worlds historians would agree upon Stalin being the cause of at least tenfold the number of deaths u say he is responsible for.

Not only are you totally wrong in most of the things you say, you are also allways talking as if what you say is the truth and that it is what the leading historians agree upon... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

LMAO

I can only pray that the ones convinced by your nonsence ramblings in diffrent topics are very few, hopefully none.

Kalle

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Kalle @ Mar. 25 2004,14:09)]

Quote[/b] ]This is plain silly.

Why?


Quote[/b] ]
This is obvious lying, maybe not the famine part but when you as usual try to be the spokesman for the historians in the world.... Id bet my last cent most of the worlds historians would agree upon Stalin being the cause of at least tenfold the number of deaths u say he is responsible for.

You can indeed find historians who claim that; you can also find hisotirans (like Irving) who claimed the Holocaust never happened.

The fact of the matter of the matter is that while Stalin was pretty nasty piece of work all round, the implisitc "Stalin is responsible" argument is intellectually vacuous. It refuses to take into account the economic and social conditions of the time - such as the USSR being under permanent threat of invasion from NATO.

This is becuase the argument as advanced in the West is primarily a PROPAGANDA argument. We went through a forty-year Cold War in which propaganda was the primary weapon: and the West most certainly excelled in that department.

As for numbers, I think the situation is... complex. For one thing, over the last hundred years of serious arechology, we have steadily found that the primitive past was not nerarly as primitive as we thought. The argument that the numbers given by historical sources are inherently suspect is actually not that good an argument; we have been vconsistently surprised by how far ancient societies could trade, how well they could build, and their medicine. Its very hard to say that source X is correct, and very good reasons for taking everything with a pinch of salt, but eually the PRESUMPTION that these numbers need to be discounted is baseless.

[Kalle]

Quote[/b] ]
You can indeed find historians who claim that; you can also find hisotirans (like Irving) who claimed the Holocaust never happened.


Someone calling Irving a historian ruins his own credebility at once.

And yes there are many many calculations for how many deaths Stalin is responsible for, i never said that there wasnt.

I wont bother comment on the rest of your post besides ur claim the USSR were under constant threat of invasion, to this i can only http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

Kalle

[The Wizard]

And on another note: what is an argument about Stalin's 'cleansings' of his government doing in a thread on Persian numbers? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

BTW Kalle, very nice post. Good job http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif



~Wiz

[Kalle]

Thank you Wizard :)

I reread the entire topic and see that it also supports your posts about persian sources, Rosacrux went very quiet here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I think I will have to get into the discusion of the immoral leader aswell, as there are bad things going on there.

Kalle

[squippy]

Quote[/b] ] I wont bother comment on the rest of your post besides ur claim the USSR were under constant threat of invasion, to this i can only http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

The entire Red Army was based around a doctrinal assumption of fighting an defdensive land war across Europe. Theres no denying that, really. It began when the US refused to demobilise tank divisions stationed in Germany, and there was a real expectation that the US would just keep on rolling; indeed, this was discussed as I recall.