Numbers of troops in empires vs city states

Ok so ive been thinking, if you look at the number of troops raised by large empires vs the number of troops raised by city states, theres this strange decrease in numbers as the empire gets bigger
for example: At marathon Athens, a single city state raised 10 000 hoplites for the battle. Athens controlled only Attica at the time
The Ptolemaic empire raised their largest army at Raphia and it had 70 000 men, The area of the Ptolemaic empire must have been 50 times the size of Attica
So my question is, why cant an empire 50 times larger raise 50 times the amount of troops? Is it due to corruption? Less loyalty from the subjects? harder to get the troops in one place?? what is it?

1. An empire 50 times larger does not have 50 times the population, as most of its territory is covered by comparatively sparsely populated agrarian or barren areas. A city state has a much higher population density, which in turn means that in relation to its size it will always be able to field more troops than an empire.

2. The larger an army the harder it is to handle. Above certain numbers it makes less and less sense to enlarge an army.

3. The larger an empire the more places have to be guarded. If you can cross the whole domain in a short time, you can afford to concentrate everything at one place, but if you have to cross vast distances, you can't afford that.

4. The more dire the situation the more will a state be willing to exhaust its reserves to the last. Marathon was a matter of existence for Athens, much more so than Raphia for Ptolemy.

And:

5. The larger the empire, the lower the proportion of good quality fighting men relative to the population as a whole. In small states, wars involving the majority of the men fit and able to fight are more common. In large empires, there may be wars on the borders, but they are fewer and less common since enemies hesitate to attack such a large, strong empire, thus the people become more used to peace than war and become less warlike with time. Large empires have fewer soldiers and more farmers, tradesmen and slaves relative to population size.

Plus, in large empires, many of the men of fighting age may be of a different ethnicity and/or religion to the ruling class, and therefore the rulers may be reluctant to arm them in case they become rebellious and turn their weapons on their masters. Or they may simply be regarded as inferior racial stock, and thus not considered to be good quality fighting men. For example, the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires tended to rely more on Hellenes as soldiers, and less on the native Iranians and Egyptians, who were far greater in number.

Finally, the cost of military and civil administration in a large empire becomes relatively greater the larger it becomes (bigger armies and empires are more difficult to keep organised), and thus there is relatively less wealth available to spend on the army. That's why there was a law of diminishing returns which naturally limited the maximum size of empires. The Roman army became very small relative to the empire's population size because the Romans simply couldn't afford to make it larger.

Thats what im interested in, what causes the law of diminishing returns and how big is an empire before it kicks in

6. Unrest. Whereas Athens is only one people and culture(Greek) empires such as the Seleucid empire or the Ptolemies ruled several cultures. What happens when you rule several cultures? They all want their independence back and what better opportunity is there to rise up when the state is at war. Because of this, empires had to keep a garrison around at all times. For the city-state, what difficulty is there to keep one large city under control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seleucid empire

The Ptolemaic empire raised their largest army at Raphia and it had 70 000 men, The area of the Ptolemaic empire must have been 50 times the size of Attica

---

Don't forget that at Raphia, Ptolemaios didn't call up his Makedonioi and Agema, they were left throughtout the empire to prevent uprisings...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires tended to rely more on Hellenes as soldiers, and less on the native Iranians and Egyptians, who were far greater in number.

---

Not true, not even one bit...
Both levied and trained locals in the macedonian fashion or employed semi-professionals with their own fighting style...

They considered the Makedonioi superior, but they were vital for the assemblies and needed to be preserved at all costs...

Well I certainly learnt some new things today. Thanks everyone!

One may easily forget, especially in total war games, that the empire (speaking about the hellenistic ones) in this age didn't control the Poleis very much. It had only lose grip on it, unless shortly after a war. A polis chose as sometimes as much his king as a king chose which poleis to rule. That why we see kings buying off loyalty of poleis, (euergetism), giving them certain rights (for example not having to pay taxes* which is called aphorologetos or the right to make their own coins), gifts (for example a gymnasion). A polis usually also got aphrouretos or anepisthathmos which meant that they didn't need to have a royal garrison. Sure they paid war taxes and some troops, but obviously not as much as when the more ancient or independent polis itself was at war or at danger.

*Note there were many ways a king could get money out of a polis.

A great read that shows the relationships between Poleis and their basileus is: Antiochus III and the cities of western Asia Minor by John Ma (Oxford, 1999). (Almost anything of him is worth reading btw!)

Also remembering the fact the hellenistic kingdoms sometimes got a influential man from the city to be part of the political and military body (philoxenia).

And the many links "were instrumental in the court’s policy of influencing the internal politics of cities"

And the "Xenoi of the Seleucid family who served as courtiers, commanders or ambassadors would normally retain links with their families and cities of origin, presumably through several generations. They often acted as mediators between the kings and their own communities of origin, deriving substantial benefits from both systems."

Political Culture in the Greek City After the Classical Age.
Chapter V: Kings and cities in the Hellenistic Age, Rolf Strootman.

~Jirisys ()

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys

They often acted as mediators between the kings and their own communities of origin, deriving substantial benefits from both systems."
~Jirisys ()

---

...In other words, they're sneaky little gits. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys

Also remembering the fact the hellenistic kingdoms sometimes got a influential man from the city to be part of the political and military body (philoxenia).

---

Of course. And those did bear influence, but those are were in part restricted to new founded (or refounded which could also mean reconquered) and royal settlements or recently conquered. They did their best to maintain loyalty from the city while keeping a most beneficial relation between king and state. But that still makes for a different situation. It's not because you accept to pay certain taxes or war taxes and send some troops, that you'll only put small part of your full military power at their service.

Poleis were very much aware of the fact that they were here to stay, contrary to the kings and kingdoms.

An empire cannot raise hundreds of thousands for a single battle is because canned food and mass transportation was not invented back then...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

An empire cannot raise hundreds of thousands for a single battle is because canned food and mass transportation was not invented back then...

---

That's the correct answer.

The size of a single army (not to be confused with the overall military strength of a state) cannot exceed a certain ammount of men defined by the logistical circumstances the army is operating in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

That's the correct answer.

The size of a single army (not to be confused with the overall military strength of a state) cannot exceed a certain ammount of men defined by the logistical circumstances the army is operating in.

---

but the persians had 600 000 in the sythcian campaign of darius and millions in the Greek campaign of Xerxes. And despite what people say about the quality of persian troops, even a levy had to eat as much as an elite soldier didnt they? also the perisnas had huge amounts of cavalry which were probs made up of noble families from asia as well as their elite heavy infantry the immortals and Greek mercenaries

And apparently the Assyrians and Median empires before the persians raised an average of 1 000 000 troops per campaign

I am afraid the figure is not correct. After about 2000 years, Napoleon's invasion of Russian only have 500,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seleucid empire

but the persians had 600 000 in the sythcian campaign of darius and millions in the Greek campaign of Xerxes. And despite what people say about the quality of persian troops, even a levy had to eat as much as an elite soldier didnt they? also the perisnas had huge amounts of cavalry which were probs made up of noble families from asia as well as their elite heavy infantry the immortals and Greek mercenaries

And apparently the Assyrians and Median empires before the persians raised an average of 1 000 000 troops per campaign

---

You are obviously confusing facts with exageration. There's no way an army in antiquity could fiedl 1 000 000 troops. The land just wasn't able to support such numbers in terms of food and water. And those persian figures are way, way exagerated. You should base your knowledge upon 300

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anubis88

You should base your knowledge upon 300

---

Thats a bit harsh. i didnt base anything off 300. i realise a lot of ancient historians exaggerate numbers for purposes of propaganda but the assyrian estimates are from the written accounts of their own kings such as Sennacherib. also I see no reason for Assyrians to over exaggerate their numbers. im pretty sure a king wouldnt brag about crushing a rebellion of 1 000 people with 1 000 000 troops

I remember doing a research paper on Xerxes' invasion of Greece. At the Battle of Thermopylae, and from memory, contrary to popular belief the Persians are estimated to have numbered between 70,000 (Lowest estimate I found, according to a British Colonel based in Greece during World War 2, if I remember correctly) and 250,000 (highest estimate I found, according to an Turkish historian who's name I've also forgotten). The calculations were made according to the geography of the traversed areas, potable water availability, food supplies and demographics of the Persian Empire by the British General, and by ancient imperial records and accounts by the Turkish historian.

The Greeks also numbered -a lot- more than 300.

yes i know the greeks had more than 300 =.= .....
but consider also that the persians were being supplied by a fleet of 500-900 ships. Thats a pretty massive fleet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seleucid empire

im pretty sure a king wouldnt brag about crushing a rebellion of 1 000 people with 1 000 000 troops

---

Of course he would.
What's better to intimidate any potential rebel than to tell him that there are literally endless streams of soldiers coming for him if he starts anything?

Not to mention the tendency to boast about the own power level (both towards the people living at the same time and future generations):
"Look at me! I commanded millions of people! I was able to levy two hundreds of thousands in one single army - just teach those pesky rebels a lesson they wouldn't forget! That's how awesome my reign was!" ;)

Quote:

---

but consider also that the persians were being supplied by a fleet of 500-900 ships. Thats a pretty massive fleet

---

True, but that fleet didn't just sail forth and back between the places where a food surplus was available and the greek peninsula. ;)
And even if they had done this - have a look at the amount of grain/water/etc a single soldier needs per day. Add in the food for the horses and other animals in an army and so on. And we didn't even mention all the non-food supplies needed....
The amount of supplies would have been astronomical.

Oh, I wasn't have a go at you. It's just that you'd be surprised how common a misconception it is.

And yeah, Xerxes used his ships side by side to form a bridge and get his army to cross from Turkey to Greece. So it must have been a pretty massive fleet, for sure. It might be worth pointing out that the above estimate did not include the fleet. Getting accurate figures on that is even harder than the land army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowwalker

True, but that fleet didn't just sail forth and back between the places where a food surplus was available and the greek peninsula. ;)
And even if they had done this - have a look at the amount of grain/water/etc a single soldier needs per day. Add in the food for the horses and other animals in an army and so on. And we didn't even mention all the non-food supplies needed....
The amount of supplies would have been astronomical.

---

hmm good point. ok i know wiki is a bad source but it says herodotus gives a very detailed breakdown of the persian fleet. including 1207 ships and which areas of the empire they were from and about 3 000 transport vessels :O.
holy moly 4207???? largest navy of all time? would that be enough to supply say 1 000 000 land troops??

and also didnt the siege of Rhodes by Demetrius involve the navy ferrying supplies between macedon and rhodes so the persians could have done that since all they had to do was cross the Aegean?

Herodot is perhaps not the most reliable source since he had that tendency of exaggeration we mentioned already. ;)
But even if those numbers were real (and I highly doubt it to be honest) - more than 4000 ships mean another large mass of people that need supplies (just estimate 40 man per ship which is probably a very low numberr since back then ships were manned by oarsmen - and suddenly you have another 160.000 (!!!) men to supply).
But lets assume that would be no problem - there is an even more basic problem.
Agriculture was not as "efficient" as today in most areas. Sure, the Fertile Crescent and parts of Egypt and Sicilia etc were indeed fertile but in most parts of the ancient kingdoms people just didn't produce more than perhaps 3-5 times the amount of grain they had planted. And while 2 hearvest periods per year were possible in certain regions I still have the strong feeling that it wouldn't have been enough to supply an additional million of people/horses etc.
And that million of people would not have been available for the farm work - just another additional problem.

The siege of Rhodos was done by a much smaller army if I recall correctly so it was a lot easier to supply it.

On the Fleet matter:

Eventho I doubt Xerxes had that many ships I'd like to add that they could aswell be distributed over a large area, meaning that parts of the fleet could patrol there others transit there and quite a lot scare some island folk there. That would need a number of officers but hey what are 20 squad leaders compared to millions of rowers. I doubt Xerxes always had his "conquer Greece"-Fleet in one large chunk, which , as with armies is quite logistically challanging. However having 1000* 500 Ancient warships and 3000 1500 support vessels(which could be Sailboats however) distributed along the coastline of northern Greece(what is now nothern greece) sounds not tooooooooooo far fetched.

*not my estimate but an attemt to make the numbers more reasonable.

Quote:

---

yes i know the greeks had more than 300

---

Thats not an understatement that's clever distribution of truth *trollface* there (most likely) were 300 Spartiates at Thermopylai standing against ... a lot of persians, they had the added bonus of 4000 Greeks who retreated and a rather large buch of Thespians(they should be sung of more), Phocians, Thebans(however...) and Helots(who don't count ;) ) numbering another 3000 however. 3300 against more than 50.000(considering casualties and lowest estimate) is still rather heroic but not quite as Epic as one likes it.

On Poleis vs Empire I'd like to add that probably a Poleis with 1.000.000 Inhabitants(awfully large number) could easily field a larger army than an Empire with the same number of subjects*. Be it due to all reasons mentioned above or simply because a city that can provide food/water/otherstuff for one million citizens can also provide for 750.000 citizens and 250.000 soldiers standing infront of the Poleis for one day, An Empire with 1.000.000 subjects can surely NOT provide for 200.000 standing at one border of it unless the empire is unrealistically small.

*subjects/citizens/Inhabitants is not reffering to any social or political status, just that they live inside the territory/Poleis and are musterable in times of need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seleucid empire

but the persians had 600 000 in the sythcian campaign of darius and millions in the Greek campaign of Xerxes. And despite what people say about the quality of persian troops, even a levy had to eat as much as an elite soldier didnt they? also the perisnas had huge amounts of cavalry which were probs made up of noble families from asia as well as their elite heavy infantry the immortals and Greek mercenaries

And apparently the Assyrians and Median empires before the persians raised an average of 1 000 000 troops per campaign

---

No.

At Thermopalae, greek performance was....miserable. 7000 men, could not hold a 14m pass for some 3 days, since 99% of all casualties occur during a rout, it is safe to say that *very* few Persians died .

As an example, at Martahon, 18 ships means 18000 men . Immortals did not exist, and Greek mercenaries were the Satrap's responsibility .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seleucid empire

but the persians had 600 000 in the sythcian campaign of darius and millions in the Greek campaign of Xerxes. And despite what people say about the quality of persian troops, even a levy had to eat as much as an elite soldier didnt they?

---

So do tell me, how to feed 1,000,000 people on the march on the Ancient Balkans? I remember to have read that there wouldn't even had been enough water for Xerxes' 1,000,000 in the region he was operating, leave alone food and fodder.

Quote:

---

also the perisnas had huge amounts of cavalry which were probs made up of noble families from asia as well as their elite heavy infantry the immortals and Greek mercenaries

---

Ah yes, not to forget noble cavalry! I can't speak for Ancient Persia, but in the European Middle Ages, for example, it took four to five men and a minimum of two horses to get a single heavy horseman into battle.

Quote:

---

And apparently the Assyrians and Median empires before the persians raised an average of 1 000 000 troops per campaign

---

Now we are at an average of 1,000,000 per campaign! Let me guess, for important campaigns they fielded about as much as the Red Army, some 20,000,000? Possible because not only there were some 350,000,000 people living in Ancient Mesopotamia but also because they already had railroad running everywhere. Not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zera133

I am afraid the figure is not correct. After about 2000 years, Napoleon's invasion of Russian only have 500,000.

---

Not to foreget that 500,000 was the overall ammount of troops fielded for that campaign, not the ammount of troops that marched with Napoleon on Moscow (that was less than 1/4 of the total army).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damnas

I remember doing a research paper on Xerxes' invasion of Greece. At the Battle of Thermopylae, and from memory, contrary to popular belief the Persians are estimated to have numbered between 70,000 (Lowest estimate I found, according to a British Colonel based in Greece during World War 2, if I remember correctly) The calculations were made according to the geography of the traversed areas, potable water availability, food supplies and demographics of the Persian Empire by the British General

---

I guess he didn't say that Xerxes had 70,000 men but that the maximum number he could have possibly fielded would have been 70,000 - you see the difference?

Quote:

---

Now we are at an average of 1,000,000 per campaign! Let me guess, for important campaigns they fielded about as much as the Red Army, some 20,000,000? Possible because not only there were some 350,000,000 people living in Ancient Mesopotamia but also because they already had railroad running everywhere. Not?

---

i said "apparently" because i was questioning the numbers of millions of troops myself. as i said they were the numbers on Assyrian documents which state this number. As other have already pointed out they could just be propaganda to strike fear into their enemies
dont be a smartarse yeh?

Read some more yeh?

between a 5 day engineering course, work and friends i hardly have time to play EB let alone read up on the military history of every single large empire. Thats why i posted on here in the first place although i didnt except to get trolled like this, just cause cause im less knowledgeable than you

You don't need to read up the military history of each and every Ancient empire. A single text on (pre-railroad!) military logistics would do to get an idea what was needed to move around and supply some 30,000 men, leaving a healthy doubt when anything larger than 50,000 men is stated in the sources, and rendering any numbers of more than 100,000 in a single army as "completly impossible", and some 1,000,000 a joke at best.