Go tell the spartans, strangers passing by, that here obedient to there laws we lie

[Es Arkajae]

Keep in mind also that Xerxes had made exhaustive preparation for the invasion years ion advance in some cases, forging alliances, making plans, cutting canals and finally building boat bridges etc. He had also established enormous supply dumps along his army's line of march to keep it fed in addition to his supply chain by sea. Once the initial host arrived in Greece it also would have recieved much aid from its Greek allies as well as from scrounging off the land.

[Es Arkajae]

Bah!, Thebes is the main city IN Boetia (though it doesn't consist of all of it so there would have been 'Boetians' present that weren't Thebans).

I'd edit that into my posts, except my 'edit' button has been rather stupidly stolen. Just thought I'd get that in before someone else here pointed it out

[Productivity]

Two

If thats the cause then its fairly dumb, whats the hell is the reasoning behind that? all its going to do is increase my postcount as I need to post more replies in order to correct any mistakes I may have made in earlier ones.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...0&postcount=78

So yeah - that is the cause.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=Steppe Merc]
And where do you get those numbers? From Roman historians.

Are you saying that there was no 28 legions ? are you saying that 5,500 man in a legion is not common knowledge ? please explain .

[caesar44]

"The Army of Augustus - the 'classic' legion

The army as operated from the time of Augustus can generally be referred to as the 'classic' legion......Under Julius Caesar, the army had become a highly efficient and thoroughly professional body, brilliantly led and staffed.
To Augustus fell the difficult task of retaining much that Caesar had created, but on a permanent peace-time footing. He did so by creating a standing army, made up of 28 legions, each one consisting of roughly 6000 men. Additional to these forces there was a similar number of auxiliary troops. Augustus also reformed.....As a unit, a legion was made up of ten cohorts, each of which was further divided into six centuries of eighty men, commanded by a centurion.......
1 Contubernium - 8 Men
10 Contubernia 1 Century 80 Men
2 Centuries 1 Maniple 160 Men
6 Centuries 1 Cohort 480 Men
10 Cohorts + 120 Horsemen 1 Legion 5240 Men *
*1 Legion = 9 normal cohorts (9 x 480 Men) + 1 "First Cohort" of 5 centuries (but each century at the strength of a maniple, so 5 x 160 Men) + 120 Horsemen = 5240 Men


Together with non-combatants attached to the army, a legion would count around 6000 men.
The 120 horsemen attached to each legion were used as scouts and dispatch riders. They were ranked with staff and other non-combatants and allocated to specific centuries, rather than belonging to a squadron of their own......"


This is a modern analysis , not an ancient one , you can see it on every book or net site on the subject .

[Ludens]

If thats the cause then its fairly dumb, whats the hell is the reasoning behind that? all its going to do is increase my postcount as I need to post more replies in order to correct any mistakes I may have made in earlier ones.

It is to prevent people from insulting other members and then editing their posts before the moderators see it. To prevent this, known offenders have their edit button removed so they cannot hide behind it.

What happened at Gaugamela? I never learned that particular battle...

Alexander the Great inflicted a chrusing and final defeat on Darius III. I thought it was a tribute to Darius' incompetence as well as Alex' greatness, but Kraxis recently explained that history has been rather too harsh on Darius. Both at Issos and at Gaugamela his plans were sound, but he was no match for the Macedonian Mastermind. You can find his post here.

A short summary of the battle of Gaugamela would be that Darius has chosen flat ground for his elephants and scythed chariots and to envelop the Macedonians. He then had his army stay up all night because he expected a sneak attack. Alexander's army had a good night of rest, and marched fit 'n fresh onto the battlefield to face their sleepy opponents.

Alexander used a double line and flank denial to protect himself from envelopment by the superior numbers of the Persians. He destroyed the Persian left flank cavalry with his Companions, and then flanked the Persian centre that had been pinned by his phalanx. Darius was caught between them and fled. Like Dux Corvanus said: Alexander kept the initiative during the whole battle, while Darius was reactive. That said, the quality of Darius army probably did not allow a more daring strategy.

[Es Arkajae]

It is to prevent people from insulting other members and then editing their posts before the moderators see it. To prevent this, known offenders have their edit button removed so they cannot hide behind it.

Aye, I started a thread about the matter in the watchtower forum so I'll not spend anymore time on it here where it risks a thread hijack, suffice to say it is incredibly silly and for the record I'm not the type to hide behind anything especially when insulting someone

Alexander the Great inflicted a chrusing and final defeat on Darius III. I thought it was a tribute to Darius' incompetence as well as Alex' greatness, but Kraxis recently explained that history has been rather too harsh on Darius. Both at Issos and at Gaugamela his plans were sound, but he was no match for the Macedonian Mastermind. You can find his post here.

A short summary of the battle of Gaugamela would be that Darius has chosen flat ground for his elephants and scythed chariots and to envelop the Macedonians. He then had his army stay up all night because he expected a sneak attack. Alexander's army had a good night of rest, and marched fit 'n fresh onto the battlefield to face their sleepy opponents.

Alexander used a double line and flank denial to protect himself from envelopment by the superior numbers of the Persians. He destroyed the Persian left flank cavalry with his Companions, and then flanked the Persian centre that had been pinned by his phalanx. Darius was caught between them and fled. Like Dux Corvanus said: Alexander kept the initiative during the whole battle, while Darius was reactive. That said, the quality of Darius army probably did not allow a more daring strategy.

I've heard some Yanks calling Gaugamela the 'Battle of Arbela' for some reason, he may be used to the battle under that name and the use of its correct name of Gaugamela may have thrown him off.

[cunctator]

[QUOTE=caesar44]

The largest army ever fielded by Rome was 80,000 men.

Sum = 344,400 soldiers !!! at any time
In the civil wars the number was higher , so yes , if the Romans could have done it , so the Persians .

I don`t see your point. As mentioned before the whole imperial roman army with its ca. 400.000 soldiers was never concentrated on a single place. But spread over half of europe and the lands around the mediterenean sea. The fact that even the roman empire at its high with all the infrastructure, superior logistic and a population of 60 million++ could not field more soldiers is the best proof that single armies with several 100.000 soldiers were hardly possible.



No roman historian I`ve read yet could report the number of soldiers serving in the whole army. The number and position of all legions was the best. The figures commonly found are calculated from aercheological and literal evidence. The number of auxilia units and legions from all sources of a period is collected and than the theoretical strength of them counted. Some units did surely not have their theoretical strengh but many did not see any combat for decades and were stationed at fixed places, so they were probably mot far away from their proper strengh.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ideal strengths have always been the basis for calculating unit size, as well as total troop strengths, but these are rarely realized. Consider:

Reasons why a force is below ideal numbers:

1. Battle casualties -- as RTW itself shows, units very often cannot/do not replace all casualties, particularly if the fight is a recent one.

2. Non Battle casualties -- Even with Roman sanitation, it was not until the time of the 2nd World War that battle casualties exceeded those inflicted by training accidents, disease, off-duty brawling, or falling down a set of stairs type accidents. RTW doesn't really reflect this, but an army of 300,000 can virtually guarantee X number of accidental deaths per week and will probably have hundreds who are ill on any given day.

3. Corruption -- throughout history, particularly when stationed in some far off corner of the faction's territory, commanders have been known to "forget to notify" central command of the death of soldiers under their command, particularly those deaths in #2 above. Central command thinks these soldiers are alive, doesn't replace them, but sends forward their pay (which is then pocketed by their commander as a "bonus"). Some garrisons, historically, were horribly understrength for such reasons. I have often wondered how much of this may have aided the Barbarian Invasion success against Rome.

4. Leaves/Temporary Duty and the like -- soldiers may be on strength, but not actually present for a number of such reasons.


It is, historically, quite rare for any unit to be fighting at optimum strength.

Seamus

[anonymous_joe]

Arbela might be nearer the battle site than Gaugemela. They're both in the area. One's named after a camel.

Darius' plans make sense, a mixture of luck and genius gave Alexander victory. (Not to mention a professional heavy infantry force)

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=cunctator]

[B]

I don`t see your point. As mentioned before the whole imperial roman army with its ca. 400.000 soldiers was never concentrated on a single place. But spread over half of europe and the lands around the mediterenean sea. The fact that even the roman empire at its high with all the infrastructure, superior logistic and a population of 60 million++ could not field more soldiers is the best proof that single armies with several 100.000 soldiers were hardly possible.



No roman historian I`ve read yet could report the number of soldiers serving in the whole army. The number and position of all legions was the best. The figures commonly found are calculated from aercheological and literal evidence. The number of auxilia units and legions from all sources of a period is collected and than the theoretical strength of them counted. Some units did surely not have their theoretical strengh but many did not see any combat for decades and were stationed at fixed places, so they were probably mot far away from their proper strengh.

Please read my post again , I have said before - 80,000 men in a single battle ! just look at the post . the conclusion is - 400,000 men in the Roman army , so the Persians could have 500,000 in theirs , so 100,000 to 200,000 in one battle (and the most important battle ever for the Persians) is a logical conclusion .
I hope you can see my point now .

[Steppe Merc]

No, it is not possible.
Iranian farmlands were good. However, even with their good lands and with supply trains, one satarpy could not support over 100,000 people in an army. That would just be impossible.

[caesar44]

And I thought that I am stubborn...

"The Persians are harder to quantify. From Arrian we have a fairly complete order of battle, mentioning the following (mostly from 3.8.3-6 and 3.11.3-7):

On the left wing:

The Indians bordering the Bactrians, under Bessos
Bactrians under their satrap Bessos
Sogdians also under Bessos
Dahai Scythians
Arachotians under their satrap Barsantes
Indian Hillmen under Barsantes
Persian mixed foot and horse
Medes under Atropates (probably the same as the above Persians)
Persian Susians
Kadusians marshalled with the Medes

In front of the left wing:

Sakai Scythian horse archers, under Mausaces, on armoured horses
1000 more Bactrians
100 Scythed chariots

In the centre:

Greek mercenaries under Patron the Phokian
The Kinsmen under Darius
The Persian apple-bearer footguards
More Greek mercenaries under Glaukos the Aitolian
Indians
Karian deportees
Mardian archers

Behind the centre:

Various Red Sea tribes under Orontobates, Ariobarzanes and Orxines
Babylonians under Bupares
Sittakenians marshalled with the Babylonians
Uxians and Susianians under Abulites

In front of the centre:

15 (?) Elephants
50 Scythed chariots

On the right wing:

Albanians and Sakesinians 'marshalled with the Medes' next to the centre
Medes (said to be to the right of the Syrians, but it seems left is meant) - possibly the 'Persian' cavalry that attacked the baggage with some Indian cavalry
Syrians (Koile and Mesopotamians) under Mazaios
Areians under their satrap Satibarzanes
Parthian, Hykcanian and Topeirian horse under Phrataphernes
Other Sakai

In front of the right wing:

50 Scythed chariots
Armenians under Orontes and Mithraustes
Kappadokians under Ariakes

Arrian gives a total of 40 000 horse, and a grossly exaggerated 1 000 000 foot (3.8.6); other foot totals are also incredibly huge: Didoros gives 800 000 (17.53.3), Justin 400 000 (11.12.5) and Curtius 200 000 (4.12.13). Curtius gives a possible 45 000 horse, but Didoros (200 000) and Justin (100 000) figures as incredible as their foot numbers.

The levy foot marshalled behind the Persian line played no part in the battle, so their exact numbers are not really relevant - they will be graded Hd (O). The Persian foot guards were 1000 strong in Herodotos' time, and I shall assume they remained so at this time. After the battle, 2000 Greek mercenaries escaped with Darius along with a 'few' of these guards (Arrian, 3.16.2); clearly the mercenaries were much more numerous (they were posted against the Macedonian phalanx specifically to oppose it); as Curtius mentions 4000 escaped Issos with Darius (4.1.1-3) so would have been at least that strong, but probably no more - darius would have had diificulty recruiting more mercenaries now that Alexander after Issos. Mazaios had a few days earlier commanded 3000 horse and an unknown number of foot, including 2000 Greek mercenaries (Arrian, 3.7.1, Curtius instead gives 6000 horse), so this would fit in well with each of the two Greek mercenary contingents being 2000 strong.

Let us assume that Arrian's total of 40 000 horse is correct, and that the Persian foot totalled 100 000 including all the levy rabble (their exact numbers have little effect at 2000 men per ee). The Persians, at the usual 250 men per element (but 1000 per Horde), can then be conjectured as:


Bessos' command - 86 ee

4 x Irr Cv (S) - Mausaces' Scythians
4 x Irr LH (S) - 1000 Bactrians
4 x Irr Exp (O) - 100 scythed chariots
1 x Reg Cv (S) Sub-general - Bessos
5 x Irr Cv (S) - Bessos' Bactrian heavy cavalry
8 x Irr LH (S) - Bessos' other Bactrians
6 x Irr LH (O) - Parapamisadai Indians under Bessos
8 x Irr LH (F) - Bessos' native Sogdians
8 x Irr Cv (I) - other Sogdians under Bessos
8 x Irr LH (F) - Dahai
6 x Irr LH (O) - Barsantes' Arachotians
6 x Irr Ax (X) - Barsantes' Indian Hillmen
8 x Irr Cv (O) - Atropates' Median and Persian horse
4 x Irr Ax (O) - Atropates' Median and Persian takabara
4 x Irr Ps (O) - Atropates' Median and Persian supporting foot archers
20 x Irr Hd (O) - Persian Susians and Kadusians

Darius' Command - 76 ee

1 x Irr El (O) - Indian Elephants
2 x Irr Exp (O) - 50 scythed chariots
8 x Reg Sp (O) - Patron's Greek mercenaries
1 x Reg Cv (O) CinC - Darius in his chariot
2 x Reg Kn (F) - Persian Kinsmen rearmed in the Macedonian fashion
4 x Reg Sp (O) - Persian apple-bearers
8 x Reg Sp (O) - Glaukos' Greek mercenaries
8 x Reg Sp (I) - Karian deportees
4 x Irr Bw (S) - Indian mercenaries
8 x Irr Bw (I) - Mardian archers
66 x Irr Hd (O) - Babylonians, Uxians, Susianians, Sittakenians and Red Sea peoples
Mazaios' Command - 98 ee

4 x Irr Ps (O) - Sakesinians
4 x Irr Ps (S) - Albanian javelinmen
4 x Irr Ps (O) - Albanian archers
16 x Irr LH (F) - Orontes' and Mithraustes' Armenians
12 x Irr LH (O) - Ariakes' Kappadokians
2 x Irr Exp (O) - 50 scythed chariots
4 x Irr Cv (I) - Indian cavalry
11 x Irr Cv (O) - Median and Persian cavalry
1 x Reg Cv (O) Sub-general - Mazaios
16 x Irr Cv (I) - Mazaios' Syrians and Mesopotamians
8 x Irr Cv (I) - Satibarzanes' Areians
8 x Irr LH (F) - Phrataphernes' Parthians
4 x Irr Cv (I) - Phrataphernes' Topeirians
4 x Irr Cv (S) - Phrataphernes' Hyrkanians
4 x Irr LH (F) - other Sakai
This totals 250 ee and 1281 AP.

References:

Alexander of Macedon, P. Green, Uni.Cal.Press, 1991
Diodorus Siculus, esp. book 17
Plutarch's Life of Alexander
Justin 's Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Translated by J.C.Yardley, American Philological Association, Classical Resources Series, Scholars Press, Atlanta GA, 1994, ISBN 1-55540-951-2. Introduction and Notes by R.Develin.
Arrian's History of Alexander
Polyainos' Strategems and Excerpts. Translated by Peter Krentz and Everett Wheeler, Ares Publishers, 1994, ISBN 0-89005-503-3
Quintus Curtius' History of Alexander

[caesar44]

More - http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/alexander.htm

http://www.ancientbattles.com/WAB_Ma...laScenario.htm

http://www.lbdb.com/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=94&WID=46

http://history.boisestate.edu/westci...ander/09.shtml

http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/BattleView.cfm?BID=94

http://www.fanice.com/articles/Battle_of_Gaugamela


The Persians had between 100,000 to 200,000 men , most of them were poor soldiers

[Steppe Merc]

Caesar, why would I take those numbers as anything close to fact? It's from an ancient historian who was not at the battle, nor was he a soldier. Why would we assume that the 40,000 horse is correct?
Do you have any idea how much it takes to support good horses? Even if most were derived from steppe ponies and similar breeds, it would still be incredibly difficult in a settled land.
Also, if he said they had a million infantry, why would his horse number be correct?

In addition, Persian infantry did not stink! They were just different from Greeks and Romans. Yeah, the shield and spear levies weren't great, but most were decent to good.

Besides, this reasoning is flawed:

The Persians, at the usual 250 men per element (but 1000 per Horde), can then be conjectured as:

Almost all ancient groupings were an ideal, not exact numbers. In reality, groups could be less or even larger than their commonly accepted numbers.

[Urnamma]

Caesar, this is getting agitating... Not one single modern, credible historian believes the ancient numbers. They're vastly inflated. What's worse, you're quoting wargaming numbers as if they actually meant something.

C'mon, man. Next you're going to tell me atlantis exists because Plato eluded to it...

[Wishazu]

so steppe merc is discounting ancient historians because they werent actually at the battle and urnamma would rather go along with modern historians who are living a couple of millenia after the battle, with all the intervening mysts of time etc. wierd lol i`ll go with the 100,000 persian inf and 30,000 - 40,000 persian cav. Seem perfectly realistic to me, afterall the persian empire was fabulously wealthy and even though the persian kings werent great military strategists they were exceptional organisers.

[Simetrical]

I believe the actual quote was "Go and tell the Lacodaemonians..." not Spartans.

Yes, but you can't put that in iambic pentameter as easily.

Gŏ téll thĕ Spártăns, strángĕr pássĭng bý,
Thăt hére ŏbédiĕnt tó thĕir láws wĕ líe.

Of course, you have to fudge obedient as three syllables instead of four, but it still works. You'd have to recast it entirely to work in Lacedaemonians, that's an extra three feet.

Edit: From Wikipedia, the actual text was

ὦ ξεῖν', ἀγγέλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅτι τῇδε
(O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti täde)
κείμεθα τοῖς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι.
(keimetha tois keinon rhämasi peithomenoi.)

and a literal translation is

Oh foreigner, tell the Lacedaemonians
that here we lie, obeying their words.

I doubt you could make a much more literal rhyming couplet in iambic pentameter out of those lines.

[kayapó]

so steppe merc is discounting ancient historians because they werent actually at the battle and urnamma would rather go along with modern historians who are living a couple of millenia after the battle, with all the intervening mysts of time etc. wierd lol i`ll go with the 100,000 persian inf and 30,000 - 40,000 persian cav. Seem perfectly realistic to me, afterall the persian empire was fabulously wealthy and even though the persian kings werent great military strategists they were exceptional organisers.

For some reason I think you and Caesar have not read my post back there. I won't repeat myself. It is not about discounting anything. It is about taking things in the context they were created. Please read my post.

[Reverend Joe]

I've heard some Yanks calling Gaugamela the 'Battle of Arbela' for some reason, he may be used to the battle under that name and the use of its correct name of Gaugamela may have thrown him off.

No, I always knew it was Gaugamela, I have just spent most of my time on Hannibal. He is my personal favorite.

Arbela?! How the hell do you come up with that?

[Reverend Joe]

a literal translation is

Oh foreigner, tell the Lacedaemonians
that here we lie, obeying their words.

I doubt you could make a much more literal rhyming couplet in iambic pentameter out of those lines.

Let's go with that one... I hate English. And it's all I was ever taught, besides a smattering of French- and the French was an elective!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No, I always knew it was Gaugamela, I have just spent most of my time on Hannibal. He is my personal favorite.

Arbela?! How the hell do you come up with that?

Well, I'm a yank (and probably older than you) and I was 11 or 12 before I heard/read it was the battle of Gaugamela. Prior to that I had learned it as the battle of Arabela.

Seamus

[Reverend Joe]

Well, I'm a yank (and probably older than you) and I was 11 or 12 before I heard/read it was the battle of Gaugamela. Prior to that I had learned it as the battle of Arabela.

Seamus

No idea of your age, but I am 19... I guess there have been some changes to the educational cirriculum.

[the_handsome_viking]

As I said, no general with any sense . After several days of slaughtering your men on a forest of spear-points, even the worst general will realise it's rime for a change of pace. However, what I always learned was that the tactics did not change, even when it was only the Spartans defending the pass.

As you said, Cannae was an act of arrogance. If the Roman generals had seen the trap lain before them , I doubt they would have sent their men to die en masse.

What happened at Gaugamela? I never learned that particular battle...
I know, it's sad.

why wouldnt that have happened? I mean think about what the zulus were like at Rorke's Drift.

common sense isnt always that common.

and in the end the spartans lost.

[O_Stratigos]

"Oh foreigner, tell the Lacedaemonians
that here we lie, obeying their words."

I am not so sure that “τοις κεινων ρημασι πειθωμενοι” translated as “obeying their words” is correct..
I believe “practicing their convictions” might be closer, but I defer to Teleklos for a more accurate translation.

O_Stratigos

[Fenrhyl]

Look, forget I said anything. The only reason I commented on this thread was because I despise stories of a vastly outnumbered force overcoming the odds and defeating, or at least nearly defeating, the enemy. That's why I hate the Greeks. I think it's an obsession that began with "The Charge of the Light Brigade"- when I first read it, it struck me as a load of crap. Noone should glorify the butchering of perfectly good elite soldiers, regardless of the outcome of the battle. It's sick. That's what cannon fodder is for.

Okay, rant over. I hope you don't take this personally- it's just that I hate Alfred Lord Tennyson.

Well, ever heard of the Bir Akeim battle ? It took place in 1941 when the Afrika Corps ran through the allied (mostly british though) line of defence in Lybia... Every english strongpoint yelded and retreated in front of the enemy (with good reason) but the southermost point of defense, held by the 13th half Brigade of the french foreign legion was ordered to hold the enemy. And they held 10 days. Rommel tried to have them surrender but was answered "Nous sommes venus nous battre, pas nous rendre" 'wa come here for fighting, not surrendering." Hitler ordered the prisonners to be executed on the spot like terrorists and De Gaulle ordered the same ; the next day Hitler ordered the prisonners to be treated according to Geneve's convention (wich gives you an idea of the beating the germans were receiving.) The germans were not able to overcome their enemy. Roughly a quarter of the Afrika corps was engaged because the british, seeing this as an advantage tried to break the encirclement to rescue the men in Bir Akeim and to turn the situation to their advantage. The Afrika corps lost a great amount of munitions, heavy weaponry, panzers and men while trying to break the resistance of the french who, deeply entrenched in sand, concrete and stone, were anxious to see a relief force coming to help them. In the end, after the germans freed 500 indian ghurkas to the defenders (wich was smart, the french were roughly 400, 500 more men to feed was a serious problem to solve when water reserves were thin) the english command decided he was neither able to relieve the fort nor to bring supplies in time (the RAF did not control the sky yet) and ordered the defenders to retreat ... and they did. They sallied with their vehicles by night and took the safe way through their own mine field. I don't know the exact number but some suicided themselves in a frontal attack of the german lines, shattering them in the process and allowing their comrades to leave the field with no damage.

Don't mess with the foreign legion.

On the field it was obviously a defeat. On a larger scale it stopped the german onslaught dead in its tracks and gave the allies time to regroup and prepare their defenses. Most of the defenders survived.

More importantly, they proved that De Gaulle was right in his recommandations about "modern" warfare and they proved that "blitzkrieg" tactics could be countered. It caused a shift in the allies tactivs in north Africa that, in the end, lead to the result we all know.

As you can see, all this kind of actions are not necessarily a waste of human life (though war in general is an awful waste.)

Interestingly, a pararell with the thermopylai was made at the time of the battle (hey, i managed to stay in the topic !)

[conon394]

Steppe Merc

No, it is not possible.
Iranian farmlands were good. However, even with their good lands and with supply trains, one satarpy could not support over 100,000 people in an army. That would just be impossible.

Do you have any idea how much it takes to support good horses? Even if most were derived from steppe ponies and similar breeds, it would still be incredibly difficult in a settled land.

Actually I do have an ideal how much horses need to eat. And I don’t know that steppe ponies are better than the Persian stock. In any case they are a different ball game, depending on grazing they could not be readily switched to grain fodder. But as to farmland you’re making a logical mistake in suggesting Iran as the source of Persian supply. The Persians directly controlled Egypt, and indirectly the Black sea grain exporting regions (are we still taking about Xerxes or Darius III anyway?). The Black sea region alone could supply enough grain to feed something like half of the 300,000 or 400,000 people of 5th century Athens (and other city states as well). With 2 of the breadbaskets of the ancient world why is it so difficult to believe the Persians could support a 100,000 man army?

Edit: oops sorry Steppe, I was tired and didn't notice the point was discussion had firmly moved to just Alexander's battles and associated Persian numbers at them...

But you really cannot use the not a soldier argument. Arrian had been a commander, and his primary source was Ptolemy. Now did Ptolemy have his biases sure, but you got to admit he was there and was most defiantly a soldier.

[SigniferOne]

You know, after being truly impressed by the creativity and quality of content in the mod you guys have, it takes a thread like this to remind me what the soul of EB really is, and why I was so right to reject the invitation to join, long ago.

Steppe Merc has really been a colorful poster here:

Persian infantry did not suck. It was different.

And that would have been bad, if the Persians had won?

That is just REVOLTING.

You can't believe historians.

Who should we believe, then? You?

And Urnamma explained it excellently, it is he who helped me realize how impossible large armies were.

Well, congratulations guys, you are certainly growing yourselves a worthy disciple here.

I've lately started to judge EB solely on its wonderful skins and many unique ideas, and started to think that maybe I didn't mind EB at all now, but in fact quite appreciated it and its high quality. It took this thread to see under the covers and remind me again what kind of people flourish in this group.

Teleklos, how can you manage to still be part of that 'team'? Would it be so bad if the Persians had won? You tell me.

[khelvan]

You know, after being truly impressed by the creativity and quality of content in the mod you guys have, it takes a thread like this to remind me of EB's soul, and why I was so right to reject the invitation to join, long ago.

So nice of you to pop in again. Regardless of this current discussion, it has been shown time and time again that you have no idea of what EB's soul is, and the only reason you were "invited" is because I did not realize that SigniferOne = dsyrow1. Once you explained who you were, it was obvious that neither we nor you would have approved that union.

But that is ok, you just like to pop your head into threads and poke holes, and never have anything constructive to add. Your "soul" has always been quite evident, so forgive me (we?) if I (we) don't mind it too much that you think poorly of us.

[O_Stratigos]

That is just REVOLTING.

And you, using a word like that makes you what?

Teleklos, how can you manage to still be part of that 'team'? Would it be so bad if the Persians had won? You tell me.

Is this supposed to be a "civil" question that requires an answer? If you don't agree with a posting either try and prove it wrong or if you have nothing to say then shut up.

O_Stratigos