Quote: Above I saw someone comparing Napoleontian armies to Persian implying the former were any vastly more advanced in logistic terms. Well that is far from being the case. The truth is (and ask any 19th warfare specialist) that the fastest moving land-based infantry western European army in 18th-19th century prior to the advent of railroad was that of Marlborough who mastered a very satisfying 25km per day.

Quote:what is more funny is that in terms of warfare ancient armies would simply slaughter with particular ease the Napoleontian armies given that they only had to outrun the 150m distance (1 minute), lose by bullets say a 25-30% of their force and then enjoy the party slaughtering the totality of the opposing Napoleontian force in 4-5 minutes

Quote:but of course here our interest is logistics. So no, there is nothing particularly more evolved to logistics of Napoleontian era than that of the classical era - and one would note the absence of instant messaging via fire-signaling stations in mountains across Europe which was the case in Greece (and I guess most probably in Persia).

Quote:If Napoleon could get more than 500,000 men to travel to cold Moscow, Persians could send 3 times that number during summertime in Greece. A 400,000 minimum fighting force backed by 2-3 times this numbers in overall logistics (i.e. not just accompagning logistics but local-support logistics) should be seen as something very casual even if extraordinary in frequency and impressive to everyone. All it took was to have the financial support and the means and Persians had plenty of both, 10 times more than Napoleon.

Quote:As for the feasibility of supply lines - the mere paradigm of relatively small ships at 50tn carrying wheat whose every kilo more than suffices to cover the needs of 2 men for a day mean that it would suffice 1 ship arrival per day to bring in the daily allowance for 100,000 soldiers. Just 1 small ship per day!!!

Quote:Underestimating the abilities of the ancients is to give to much credence to the vanity of the modern mind, which seems to think it is superior to everything that has preceded it. (by minutes, in some cases :wink: )
I think ther is good evidence to give them some respect, even if we cannot prove the minute details.
And actually, 40,000 men do not take up too great a space...
They were not living in estates, they were on campaign.

Quote:The Persians did invade Greece, but they were eventually beaten. Their army was not immense. I see no problem with an army of 40.000. I see no problem for a 100.000 even.But for those immense numbers, I see no evidence, no charters, no reports.
I guess we are both more on the same line than you think.

Quote:Hi Nikos]
Pure theory. WHERE would it land? Did the captain use his iPhone to call the high command :wink: and ask where these troops were? Nice if there had been prearranged points, but the army could hardly wait for that ship and sit still if it was delayed – and how would a captain locate the army on the move?

Quote:

Robert Vermaat post=306988 Wrote:Hi Nikos]
Pure theory. WHERE would it land? Did the captain use his iPhone to call the high command :wink: and ask where these troops were? Nice if there had been prearranged points, but the army could hardly wait for that ship and sit still if it was delayed – and how would a captain locate the army on the move?

You have raised a lot of valid questions Rob. This one is, in my opinion, the most important of all. I wouldn't see that as a problem. The cargo-fleet would easily find the army. First of all, the cargo-fleet would not seek for the army but for the war-fleet. This would be very hard to miss, since it was huge on its own and patrols would have been dispatched in a radius. Also, part of the army would march alongside the sailing fleet to secure its anchoring, Not much, maybe 10,000 horse and light infantry, who would keep continuous contact between the land columns and the war-fleet. Finding other columns behind, if one accepts my proposal on that, would be as easy to find. Other signals would also be made. Fire signals, patrols with certain banners etc. I think that this would not be a significant problem. Plus, the troops would have some days rations on them anyways, in case something (like the occasional bad weather) caused problems.

Quote:It is extremely unlikely that they had a million men, simply because there is absolutely no reason to bring a force 20 times larger than a huge army by the day's measures. Not for invading a bunch of disunited city states.

Quote:10 thousand is not much? It's nearly the equivalent of a Greek city state's army.

Quote:

Gaius Julius Caesar post=306967 Wrote:Macedon does however explain quite clearly how it would be feasible for the army to have been quite large, and the Persians capable of raising it and supplying it.

Indeed he does! But to me that's also where it ends - in pure theory.
Of course it could be possible, humanly speaking, if you had the time, the power, the means.
But that is my point in all this (and of Roach also, I suspect) is the lack of hard evidence. I mean, no-one takes Herodotus literally here, but if we follow this through, what do we have?

Robert, the King of Kings was able to command the entire resources of the Empire. He had the time and the means.Preparation:

An operation of this size must have taken years to prepare. The logistics of it all must have been staggering. I mean, look at what was done before Normandy 1944! And that with only a tribal-based feudalist iron Age society, the pace with which such plans could have been implemented must have been a good deal slower than what the Allies needed – and that was months and months.

It is documented that it was years in the planning. In fact was it not 10 years between Marathon and Thermopolae?

Next, where do you put all those men? And how do you control all of them?
Suppose the larger part of the army would assemble in one or two spots, perhaps more, and march in separate columns towards Europe (I keep thinking of Napoleon’s and Hitler’s invasions of Russia) to keep a grip on them. But even in 3 or 4 groups, the strain on the countryside (friendly countryside) must have been enormous.
So do we have any indication where this could have taken place? Camps for hundreds of thousands of men?

They were assembling in the lands which lead up to the Hellespont I imagine, Sardis possilby being the command center?

The same goes for the fleets, which would have been essential for transport and supplies while the army was in Greece – I think everybody will agree with me that supply lines over land would have been to long and would have needed too much transport to even contemplate them as feasible.
Where would these fleets assemble? Or would we have to think of a great number of smaller fleets, each commanded separately?

Why not? The harbours of the western coast would only accomodate so many ships each.
There are many ports and beaches where fleets can muster.

For both land and sea forces, the same problem would occur: how do you control them? Persia was a feudalist state, I doubt very much that they would have been able to control each army and fleet from a central point, and I just do not see how an operation like this could have relied on commanders operating independently.

How was any pre-modern empire controlled?
Infrastructure

So I suppose that this was prepared in advance, by setting up storage facilities for food, water (especially water!), complete with live animals and their fodder.
Where are these facilities? There must have been dozens and dozens, each very large, for all the grain, non-perishable food, water, fodder and containment pens for the large herds of animals.

This is where many later armies failed. They could not get the supplies to the troops, even when organized far better than Xerxes. So how could he have managed where they all failed?

He was as successful as all of them, no more. But, his enemy was not of a size tha tthe ywere able to immdiately persure his withdrawing armies.

Is there any evidence for storage facilities where the fleets could have picked up their loads? I mean, this was so huge (and see my point on command) that it’s almost impossible to expect each city, island and region to act independently as a supply base.

Invasion

Quote:Finally, I don't recall the Persians being supplied by sea.

Quote:Preparation:
"An operation of this size must have taken years to prepare. The logistics of it all must have been staggering. I mean, look at what was done before Normandy 1944! And that with only a tribal-based feudalist iron Age society,"

Quote:Next, where do you put all those men? And how do you control all of them?

Quote:But even in 3 or 4 groups, the strain on the countryside (friendly countryside) must have been enormous.

Quote:So do we have any indication where this could have taken place? Camps for hundreds of thousands of men?

Quote:I think everybody will agree with me that supply lines over land would have been to long and would have needed too much transport to even contemplate them as feasible.

Quote:Where would these fleets assemble? Or would we have to think of a great number of smaller fleets, each commanded separately?

Quote:For both land and sea forces, the same problem would occur: how do you control them?

Quote:Persia was a feudalist state, I doubt very much that they would have been able to control each army and fleet from a central point, and I just do not see how an operation like this could have relied on commanders operating independently.

Quote:Infrastructure
So I suppose that this was prepared in advance, by setting up storage facilities for food, water (especially water!), complete with live animals and their fodder.
Where are these facilities?

Quote:This is where many later armies failed. They could not get the supplies to the troops, even when organized far better than Xerxes. So how could he have managed where they all failed?

Quote:Is there any evidence for storage facilities where the fleets could have picked up their loads? I mean, this was so huge (and see my point on command) that it’s almost impossible to expect each city, island and region to act independently as a supply base.

Quote:Invasion
Next stop: Greece. Where did they put their supplies when in enemy territory?

Quote:How did the ships know where to head, as it would be impossible to communicate the advance of the troops to the fleets, apart from with a delay of days at best and probably weeks? The troops would have to starve or take all from the enemy.

Quote:Essentially, the army would have been able to gather enough supplies from the enemy, in case the fleets did not come through (storms, enemy action, logistical mistakes being quite to be expected).

Quote:Concluding, it’s these practical problems that to me make this theory impossible to put into practice.

Quote:

Ghostmojo post=306980 Wrote:Whilst lacking the specific details you point out Tom, I'm pretty sure they would have set up supply bases at regular intervals. Nominally, or actually, controlling territory right up to the Thessalian borders - this shouldn't have been too difficult.

Playing the devil's advocate, I would disagree here. I think that establishing supply bases in Europe would be very risky business for the Persians. There is no chance they would trust their "allies" with garrisoning and keeping the huge amounts of provisions stockpiled. Such an action would attract attacks and raids by the numerous hostile tribes and the willingness of the allies to put up resistance would be questionable...