Are certain historic battles just impossible in the RTW engine?

[Ibrahim]

oh ok. now that really changes everything. so Alexandros was not severly outnumbered in either Issos or Gaugamela, or at least Issos?

[O'ETAIPOS]

We can't say what real numbers were. Many people tend to think that graeco-roman witers were pathological liars who always disorted accounts. But if we start to think that way, we may just as well throw away ancient history and start to create theories that fit us.
Reasoning that "level of organisation that was needed wasn't reached until age of reason" shows arrogance of evolutionist thinking XIXth century scholars, who believed that all things developed to reach peak of civilisation it their time.

We need to look critically at our sources, but we can't just assume they are all wrong and start rewriting history to fit our concepts.

[QuintusSertorius]

We can't say what real numbers were. Many people tend to think that graeco-roman witers were pathological liars who always disorted accounts. But if we start to think that way, we may just as well throw away ancient history and start to create theories that fit us.
Reasoning that "level of organisation that was needed wasn't reached until age of reason" shows arrogance of evolutionist thinking XIXth century scholars, who believed that all things developed to reach peak of civilisation it their time.

We need to look critically at our sources, but we can't just assume they are all wrong and start rewriting history to fit our concepts.

Indeed, throw them away and you're presented with a serious problem; there's nothing to replace them with. Flawed evidence is still better in some respects than little but pure conjecture. Because at the end of the day without evidence it's just guesswork.

[konny]

We can't say what real numbers were. Many people tend to think that graeco-roman witers were pathological liars who always disorted accounts. But if we start to think that way, we may just as well throw away ancient history and start to create theories that fit us.

Considering certain thinks - here enemy numbers - as "impossible" does not mean that the author in question has to be a pathological liar in general. Numbers in particular is something that has to be handled with care when dealing with ancient sources of any kind. The best example is always Caesar: no one can expect his report to be the truth and nothing but the truth. That does not mean that we cannot take anything from him.

Reasoning that "level of organisation that was needed wasn't reached until age of reason" shows arrogance of evolutionist thinking XIXth century scholars, who believed that all things developed to reach peak of civilisation it their time.

Things are bit more complex: It took the entire Age of Reason to reach the level of organization where operating with armies that were larger than what could have been moved and supplied for longer under the given technical situation became possible. From they Ancient armies only the Romans seemed to have achieved that level of organization (and you won't find any serious historian, regardless of which century, that wouldn't agree the Roman army was on a very high level of organization). But Roman authors claim that their army where the only one that did not operate with extra-hughe armies.

In return this would mean that either the organization was in no way unique or superior to her opponents, even that Rome's enemies were in fact much better organizied than SPQR (and that would be re-writing history), or that the enemies' numbers (in particular for lesser origanized 'Barbarians') given by the Romans were an exaggeration.

A hint to the real numbers can be in fact the numbers the Romans fielded. We know that they had the potential to field even larger armies under serious pressure (like Cannae) but usually didn't do so. Most logical would be, that they didn't do so because larger armies in this and that theatre in question had not been needed. When we redruce the numbers in the Barbarian armies to "about or a bit under" the number of Romans raised against them, they would perfectly fit into everything else we know about army sizes in Ancient history (numbers from Greek world for example).

[QuintusSertorius]

Just on that point, I'm not sure how informed it actually was by convention (given it was the size of a consular army), but many Roman commentators fixed on 25-30,000 as being the "ideal" size for an army given that balance of effectiveness and ease of supply. More than that was "too big" and as konny says something done out of exceptional circumstances, like defense of Italy or civil war (and even then there were still upper limits).

[Moros]

In other words. They usually were much smaller. However there were some exceptions. While we know that the number are usually exagerated. It's hard to tell how much, and how often.

[QuintusSertorius]

In other words. They usually were much smaller. However there were some exceptions. While we know that the number are usually exagerated. It's hard to tell how much, and how often.

Not so simple; that's how big they thought was ideal for a Roman army, not any army.

[polluxlm]

oh ok. now that really changes everything. so Alexandros was not severly outnumbered in either Issos or Gaugamela, or at least Issos?

If he wasn't severely outnumbered he would never have applied the cowboy tactics that he did.

Ancient writers may exaggerate, but they didn't just make stuff up (most at least).

Either Darius' army was close to the reported numbers, or Alexanders army was smaller.

I'm not willing to discard the legacy of the greatest general ever just because modern notions claim 'it couldn't be done'. We know next to nothing about the inner workings of the Persian Empire.

[Geoffrey S]

If he wasn't severely outnumbered he would never have applied the cowboy tactics that he did.

Why not?

Ancient writers may exaggerate, but they didn't just make stuff up (most at least).

Plenty of cases where they did, whether intentionally or not.

Either Darius' army was close to the reported numbers, or Alexanders army was smaller.

If Darius' army can't be smaller, why should Alexanders be?

I'm not willing to discard the legacy of the greatest general ever just because modern notions claim 'it couldn't be done'. We know next to nothing about the inner workings of the Persian Empire.

Is there an ostrich smiley here?

[polluxlm]

Why not?

Because then there are more economic ways of winning the battle.

Plenty of cases where they did, whether intentionally or not.

Like I said, 'most' didn't (referring to the sources today's historians consider the most feasible).

If Darius' army can't be smaller, why should Alexanders be?

I'm not saying it can't be smaller, but if it were Alexanders would have to be to.

Is there an ostrich smiley here?

No.