Are certain historic battles just impossible in the RTW engine?

[polluxlm]

What is the record for beating multiple armies?

I've done 3 or 4, but not all at the same time though. They usually just send 1 or 2, then keep the rest in reserve.

[Foot]

For the battle of Tigranocerta I would recommend reading Chahin, M., The Kingdom of Armenia. Roman authors lie and in this instant there are some interesting points of contention that Chahin brings up.

Foot

[konny]

For the battle of Tigranocerta I would recommend reading Chahin, M., The Kingdom of Armenia. Roman authors lie and in this instant there are some interesting points of contention that Chahin brings up.

I seriously doubt the Roman opponents' numbers in any of the above listed battles. Approved army sizes of well organized Ancient states, like Rome or the Diadochs, usually did not exceed 50,000 men, with only very few exceptions much above this number, like Cannae.

Armies of more than 100,000 men were not regulary used before the late Napoleonic Wars. But that was achieved by dividing up the large body into smaller corps that did only join for short periods of a few days to full force, and were broken up again immediatly after battle (exception would be the main French army in Russia with the known consequences). Sizes of 200,000 and above were not possible before the late 19th Century because they require a railroad system to supply them.

Therefore I can't see how the so called 'Barbarian' opponents of the Romans (and Greeks as well) should have solved the logistical nightmare of moving around and supplying several 100,000 men time and again on the basis of a smaller population and weaker infrastructure where everyone else failed in this task. And of course, it is hard to imagine what stupied tacticans these strategical geniusses must have been, when they allowed their monster armies to be defeated time and again by a tenth of their strength.

[Foot]

The points of contention aren't numbers fielded but whether the battle ever took place at all.

Foot

[QuintusSertorius]

I seriously doubt the Roman opponents' numbers in any of the above listed battles. Approved army sizes of well organized Ancient states, like Rome or the Diadochs, usually did not exceed 50,000 men, with only very few exceptions much above this number, like Cannae.

Armies of more than 100,000 men were not regulary used before the late Napoleonic Wars. But that was achieved by dividing up the large body into smaller corps that did only join for short periods of a few days to full force, and were broken up again immediatly after battle (exception would be the main French army in Russia with the known consequences). Sizes of 200,000 and above were not possible before the late 19th Century because they require a railroad system to supply them.

Therefore I can't see how the so called 'Barbarian' opponents of the Romans (and Greeks as well) should have solved the logistical nightmare of moving around and supplying several 100,000 men time and again on the basis of a smaller population and weaker infrastructure where everyone else failed in this task. And of course, it is hard to imagine what stupied tacticans these strategical geniusses must have been, when they allowed their monster armies to be defeated time and again by a tenth of their strength.

The whole of the point around huge numbers isn't that they fielded them, and kept them mobilised and supplied for months on end. In most of the examples they were gathered together for a very short time, and often rarely directed or commanded by anyone in particular. Even if they won the encounter, they'd disperse almost immediately because they'd exhaust the supplies in any one area.

[konny]

The whole of the point around huge numbers isn't that they fielded them, and kept them mobilised and supplied for months on end. In most of the examples they were gathered together for a very short time, and often rarely directed or commanded by anyone in particular. Even if they won the encounter, they'd disperse almost immediately because they'd exhaust the supplies in any one area.

200,000 or 300,000 men do not magicaly appear or disappear even if the army is disbanded. A track of this size would have an aproximate length of 200 to 300 km. If we do not assume an excellent system of roads that would allow to move this force on 4 or 5 parallel tracks, it would require about one week to gather them on one spot - what is the miminum requirement to use them in battle (and in this calculation the entire army still hasn't moved a single meter in any direction).

Moving around 100,000 men in three columns and uniting them on a spot in a single day is a difficult task, something that required a change of organization during the Age of Reason and someone particular in command. Assembling armies of the size the Romans want us to belive were day to day business in Barbarian Europe and Asia under the conditons of the time and state of organization is an impossibility.

And we still have to calculate what size of population we need to assume to field armies of these sizes....

[Ibrahim]

so based on this, would a persian army as Issos or gaugamela actually be around 90-150000? interesting-changes everything about Alexandros

[The Persian Cataphract]

so based on this, would a persian army as Issos or gaugamela actually be around 90-150000? interesting-changes everything about Alexandros

Nope; Though Issus has been less looked upon than Gaugamela, again we must look at the common ratios in the inflated numbers given by Graeco-Roman sources. Again, Curtius Rudus lands at the comfortable spot of 250,000 men, though in all other instances, the numbers are drastically reduced in comparison to Gaugamela. I personally think no more than five myriads (50,000 men), because we need to heed the fact that Darius' army was campaigning to meet the threat (Apparenty, Alexander needed to execute a whole wheel movement, once the news of pursuit reached to him); Going as high as 100,000 means strained logistics. I also think no more than five "armies" (Each consisting of ten thousand men), because the sources mention precisely five men who are presumably commanders. Each of them could have been a baivarâpâtîsh or separate army commanders. The Achaemenid military organization was always rigidly decimal, so it seems to me the most plausible cap. The eminent Hans Delbrück believed that at Gaugamela, Darius had as little as 52,000 men, a significant portion of them cavalry, mainly due issues in logistics but also because of miniaturizations per ratio.

Gaugamela on the other hand, I've already mentioned 52,000 men, as given by Delbrück, but most others believe that Darius' army swelled upwards 92,000 to 94,000 men. Most estimates move around the 90,000 range. The difference lie mainly in the assessment of cavalry; The likes of John Warry estimate 40,000 mounted troops (Out of a total of about 90,000), while Delbrück thinks 12,000 is a more plausible figure (Out of 52,000). Both of them give a completely different picture of the Achaemenid army, even though the corpus of infantry more or less is the same (Only the figures of peltasts vary with any significance), because Delbrück brings some balance to a heavily equestrian contingent, though consistently within the flexible axiom of "For five infantry one cavalry" in Iranian terms; Warry's estimate provides us with a force where almost half of the total are cavalry.

[cmacq]

What is the record for beating multiple armies?

I've done 3 or 4, but not all at the same time though. They usually just send 1 or 2, then keep the rest in reserve.

Right,

this is always the trick.

[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.

[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.