Numbers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

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-cg...cons/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-cg...cons/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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

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.

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.

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

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-cg...icons/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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

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-cg...cons/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-cg...cons/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-cg...cons/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-cg...cons/smile.gif

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.

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-cg...cons/smile.gif

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

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.

Everyone knew where Troy was before Schliemann 'found' it, he simply dug the site up. Caesar went there, and there were rumours about him founding a second Rome on the site, Alexander went there and pinched the armour of Achilles from the shrine there.

Homer is useful, but only as a resource for archaic Greece, especially Asia Minor in say the 8th and 7th centuries BC. It is impossible to reconstruct any useful history of an earlier Mycenaean period, anymore than we should believe that Hercules was wandering about knocking heads together. It's Myths and Legends.

But I thought Schliemann actually proved that Troy did exist when it was considered a fairy tale at the time? I must have missed something. My archaeological textbook gets older and older

At the time (19th century) Schlieman went out to find Troy, everybody believed that it was pretty much a fairytale, despite the accounts Catiline talks about.

But Schlieman didn't merely dug up the site, he had to pinpoint the exact location first. That was the tough part. The even toughest part was to escape with the loot after he dug it out. Tough because he found so much stuff it was quite hard to carry http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif

BTW professional archaelogists don't like Shliemann. They admit that Shliemann did a great thing but he was not a professional archaelogist and he destroyed a lot of precious evidences of Troy's history by his work. He destroyed upper layers of the Troy's walls and buildings because he thought they were of modern origin.

Certainly Archeologists of today loathe people like Schlieman, Evans and the likes. Actually, fact is that Evans destroyed and looted more than he actually left behind at Knossos... precisely what Schlieman did in Troy.

Plus, he (Evans) had a vision of what the "Minoan" civilization should be like, and he "adopted" the findings to that vision, not vice versa.

But all in all, those people managed to dig out something, didn't they?

yes, despite Schliemann's stealing and rearranging some artifacts and Evan's designing Minoan civilization the way he thought fit, these two men were literally the founders of modern archaeology. The first to take detailed notes and record obseravtions, and both reignited the world's interest in two civilizations that everyone considered make-believe. I think both these men deserve a tremendous amount of credit.

After reading some of this, I have begun to wonder what post-Rome army would be able to defeat a full-scale Roman army at its pinnacle of size and training. Do you have any idea when this could occur?

The Gauls have beaten them... then they came back and conquered the Gauls. The Greeks have beaten them... then they went on and conquered the Greeks. Same with Karthago. The Parthians have beaten them too, as did the Germans.

IMO the Roman Legions were far from invinsible, even at the peak of their strength. They have lost numerous times, even when outnumbering the opponents.

Rome's might wasn't the great army. It was the great army and the economical system and the social system (both systems helped them recover fast from every defeat and come back stronger) and their administrative skills and their political skill ...and a couple dozen other factors.

The military was only one leg out of the many.

Isn't ti ironic that the greatest defeat of Rome ( at Canae ) came Rome was on top of its world and their greatest victory ( at Catalunian plains ) came when Rome was deteriorating? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif

I think those elements make it even greater victory or defeat.

Great victories come at the most unexpected times.
Like when in 700s the best army in Europe, the Frankish, tried to invade the newly united Slavs in Central Europe, and got their arse kicked.

Yes indeed. The height of the British Empire was indeed 25 October 1854. On that day took place the charge of the Light Brigade. For many it symbolised the appex of British power. In many times in history the great recognize they have reached their peak when a shocking loss stops them in their tracks.

Rome wasn't at its height at Cannae - where on earth did you get that from??

It's height didn't happen until 100-300AD - another 3-500 years

And IIRC Charlemagne ruled a vast number of Slavs, and there never was a united Slavic peoples - they, like most other peoples at the time, were a bunch of tribes that fought among themselves as much as anyone else.

Of course many were also ruled by Avars and Bulgars - is that what you mean by united?? lol

As someone else said in another thread - the "pan-anythings" (pan-Slavs, pan-Arabs, etc) tend to live in little fantasy worlds trying to make up for their current inadequacies with fairy stories of their distant ancestors' imaginary heroics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Mar. 04 2003,15:33)]Rome wasn't at its height at Cannae - where on earth did you get that from??

It's height didn't happen until 100-300AD - another 3-500 years

As someone else said in another thread - the "pan-anythings" (pan-Slavs, pan-Arabs, etc) tend to live in little fantasy worlds trying to make up for their current inadequacies with fairy stories of their distant ancestors' imaginary heroics

---

Thanks for recognizing my fine work criticising "pan-" movements, Hakonarson. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif But seriously you are quite correct. At the time of Cannae Rome was on its knees and Carthage was a step away from total victory. However Hannibal did not have the proper equipement or enough men to take the city of Rome itself. I think that the profesional historians place Rome's height (in territory) at exactly 117 AD under the rule of Emperor Trajan.
As for the Slavs, if I remember correctly, Charlemagne invaded Central Europe and crusehd the ruling Avars, actually after Charlemagne's victory there were no more Avars Most were killed and the rest assimilated into their Slav subjects who were also easily put down. As far as a united Slav nation I have never heard of any such thing, although you never know.

Trajan? wasn't hadrian and marcus aurelius after trajan. Why was the high point at trajan's reign and not with the later two?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (redrooster @ Mar. 05 2003,05:16)]Trajan? wasn't hadrian and marcus aurelius after trajan. Why was the high point at trajan's reign and not with the later two?

---

Because under Trajan the empire was at its greatest territorial extent. From that point on the Romans did not conquer other lands and their outer provinces started to fall away (although that came much later).

Getting back to supply and army sizes and everything, one thing seems to be left out by a few people here, and that is what things were like at a CERTAIN time.

For instance,

The resources of Gaul in 451 AD is not the same as 100 AD

Roman Legions in the 300s BC are not the same as legions of 200 AD or even 450 AD

Gaul in the time of Attila was a land that had been wracked by civil war and germainic invasions for over a century, it was not a lush and grand eden but rather like a Mad Max movie http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif

The population of Rome at its height is est at a million by its fall many suggest it was 50k.

Key to these discussions is fixing the discussion to a certain time period/event.

IMO 50k rome and allies vs 50k hunnic confederation = 100k total combatants would be very HUGE all things considered.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif