Estimates on size of armies

**rajpoot** · 09-09-2011, 10:40

One thing that has always puzzled me is the vast difference in the estimation of the size of armies, done by contemporary historians and the ones done by scholars of ancient times.
For instance where ancient scholars put the numbers in hundreds of thousands, present day historians put them in thousands. I was reading about the Battle of Dorylaeum, and the difference in estimates is very large.

So my question is how exactly did they count the number of men back in those days (or in days of antiquity), and how do historians today estimate those numbers? And why do they always reach on such different figures?

I mean I understand that people back then might have exaggerated the numbers to make things seem more...impressive...but still how do the people today know?

**Arjos** · 09-09-2011, 11:38

For modern estimates, historians consider: population censi, text hindsights about attendants, if many sources are available they look for agreed numbers...
In overall they try to come up with the most reasonable and objective conclusion...

**rajpoot** · 09-09-2011, 18:04

So that means modern estimates have as much chance of being erroneous as the historical ones?

**Arjos** · 09-09-2011, 18:23

In my humble opinion modern estimates can reach size ranges, which are wholly plausible...
They don't give the exact number, but the most probable figures...
Also there are historical ones which are perfectly documented, but for the "propagandistic" ones they can come up with the closest numbers...

**SwordsMaster** · 09-09-2011, 21:02

It's not the size that matters, it's the motion of the ocean :P

**Brandy Blue** · 09-10-2011, 02:05

I think modern scholars also look at the size of the battle field (if its location is known). If an ancient source says that 50,000 fought there but there is really only space for maybe 10,000 to deploy, then likely there was an exaggeration.