Ancient army numbers

[Macedon]

The numbers are not at all probable. If command and control was difficult for much more than 60-70,000 infantry, how more so for 1,207 triremes?! If these are fully manned you're speaking of near a quarter of a million men - and this is, of course, to totally ignore the grain and other supply ships that could "not be counted". The men who manned these ships - including the supply ships - had to be experienced sailors; those on the triremes even more so. One can only imagine the number of pier-side whore houses going bankrupt in the eastern Mediterranean over this campaign.

I disagree. Why is it so difficult for an advanced military culture such as the Achaemenid Empire or the Greeks controlling such numbers?

1. The crews need not have been experienced but trained. Training crews in a matter of a single season was the norm, and was done by all (Macedonians, Romans Carthaginians etc) in the 3 years of the Achaemenid preparations it would be quite easy. All the peoples supplying the ships and crews were seafaring peoples and there would be no problem finding the crews. Long experience was not required, although of course some would have been more experienced than others.

2. Why would there be any financial problem in those regions? Peoples who gave crews would not give land forces. 250,000 men absent for a season would not strain manpower resources of the Eastern Mediterranean, why would it?. Why would 20,000 Ionians make such a difference? Or 40,000 Egyptians? 60,000 Syrians and Phoenicians sounds taxing but considering that this would be the most reliable part of Xerxes' navy, I guess that some compensation would have been given.

On the numbers of infantry and cavalry it is a salutary point that we never hear of anything approaching the numbers accorded to Achaemenid armies in the Diadoch or later Hellenistic period. Antigonus, Lysimachus and Seleucus fought for Asia with a combined total of some 134,000 infantry and 20,500 cavalry. Antiochus III, in defence of his realm, fielded 70,000 infantry. Raphia saw some 140,000 men on the field. These are the largest Hellenistic battles that we have some figures for. None of them - none - approach the plainly ridiculous figures for Achaemenid armies in the Greek sources.

And then we have reports of huge Indian and Chinese armies, of huge Celtic armies, how about the Gauls at Alesia? How about the Roman and Carthaginian armies that fought in the naval battles of the Punic wars? How about the Carthaginian armies attested in Sicily? Or other later accounts of Ottoman or Arab campaigns. And then we have the many attestations of smaller Achaemenid armies. Why weren't they inflated by the same propagandist historians? No, I am against outright dismissing huge numbers because "they are too big" There are other, better reasons to do so and I DO NOT SAY THAT WE SHOULD NOT.

It remains an unfortunate fact that, as far as the Hellenocentric sources are concerned, one Greek or Macedonian must defeat at least ten effete Persians. Either that or we must be prepared to believe that Cyrus - who certainly well knew what he was marching into - relied upon some 13,000 Greeks to win his battle against the King's 900,000 strong army (or 1,200,000 had the King's bastard brother not been late). Pure piffle.

? While the non-hellenocentric sources say what? And why should Cyrus completely rely on the Greeks of the tyrant Clearchus to beat his brother? Who says so in the sources? Yes, they were the most efficient part of his army, yes, he rested many of his hopes on them but in the end, he valiantly charged Artaxerxes and tried to decide the contest himself. Greek sources are nothing like what you describe them to be. The Persians are generally held in high regard and they are credited with numerous victories over Greeks, shrewed generalship and admirable morals and conduct. Of course they are also at times scorned and accused as are Greeks... I maintain that Greek historiography is surprisingly neutral. I would expect a much bigger (yep, I had initially written "bugger" here :oops: :oops: ) bias in favor of anything Greek than is actually present.