In the naval engagement off Ecnomus, in 256 BCE, the Romans employed 330 ships, and the Carthaginians 350. If we accept 200 men/ship, almost 140,000 people were present, which must make this one of the largest battles in Antiquity. Does anyone know a larger battle for which reliable statistics exist?
Quote:In the naval engagement off Ecnomus, in 256 BCE, the Romans employed 330 ships, and the Carthaginians 350. If we accept 200 men/ship, almost 140,000 people were present, which must make this one of the largest battles in Antiquity. Does anyone know a larger battle for which reliable statistics exist?
Nicasie has a nice list of campaign numbers of the 3rd to 6th centuries AD.
(Nicasie, Martijn (1997): Twilight of Empire, the Roman Army from the Reign of Diocletian until the Battle of Adrianople, (Thesis Publishers Amsterdam), pp. 204-5):
Army of maxentius, 312: 188.000 (Zosimus II.15.2)
Army of Licinius, 324: 165.000 (Zosimus II.22.1)
The next two are Constantine and Licinius again, both 324, 130.000, the army sent to Africa against the Vandals in 457: 100.000, but the rest ranks well below that with numbers between 10-30.000 and smaller.
To make the numbers even scarier Jona, assume these ships were quinqueremes (which they prolly were) at full strength, i.e. 300 rowers and some 100 marines... for each ship.
On the other hand, that number in all probability encompasses both warships and transports. At 60/65 practicable max/squadron and four squadrons (and without checking Thiel), I'd guesstimate the Roman fleet at 250 warships and the rest freighters with a much lower crew. Also, it would not be surprising if the warships towing the freighters were not fully manned. That only nuances your statement, but does not answer your question.
Reliable statistics is a problem with Actium, but numberswise, it is probably at least at the same level.
Karma point added.
Nice to know that while you have just woken up, I've been writing all night and still haven't seen my bed...
Okay, I must have been sleeping when I wrote this initial post. Here's what Polybius says (1.26): 140,000 Romans and 150,000 Carthaginians. He says he arrived on these figures from counting the ships (330 and 350) and assuming that 300 rowers and 120 soldiers were on board.
In other words, he says that he believes that we can be reasonably confident that 290,000 men were present. Even accepting that the soldiers were also employed as rowers and Polybius counts them twice, we arrive at 330*300 plus 350*300 = 204,000 people.
I think this was the biggest battle of Antiquity, and suspect that we have to wait until the Napoleontic Wars to see something similar.
Quote:Even accepting that the soldiers were also employed as rowers and Polybius counts them twice
Why do we need to accept that? It's perfectly well established that rowing was a) an inferior job b) something that required a lot of training the soldiers could've spent on training for battle. Soldiers did row on occasion (twice iirc, Caesar's crossing to Britain & Germanicus combined arms operation), but both times they were rowing some kind of transport galley.
If the numbers are inflated above the ordinary, it's because the fleet was transporting an army to Africa, whose soldiers
Quote:I think this was the biggest battle of Antiquity
Like I quoted earlier, Constantine vs. Licinius together had more than 260.000 in the field. And was Darius III not supposed to have had an army numbering 300.000 or something at Gaugamela?
Quote:Jona Lendering:1air64pz Wrote:I think this was the biggest battle of Antiquity
Like I quoted earlier, Constantine vs. Licinius together had more than 260.000 in the field. And was Darius III not supposed to have had an army numbering 300.000 or something at Gaugamela?
According to Zosimus, I understood; but can we check it? It sounds like the usual exaggerated figures. Ecnomus, on the other hand, is based on the counting of ships, which are (as I understand it) more or less reliable. But I would be glad to give the great Constantine the greatest battle. (I lent my copy of Nicasie's book to someone who never gave it back, and I do not remember whom...)
Quote:If the numbers are inflated above the ordinary, it's because the fleet was transporting an army to Africa,
Yes and no. The figures are indeed above the ordinary due to the fact that legionaries were being transported; but corvus was used and I suppose that the legionaries were not just standing there and watching how others did the job.
Meanwhile, a new puzzle arises: on these ships, 40,000 legionaries were transported. Why did Regulus use only 15,000 men once he was in Africa? Lancell's
History of the First Punic War does not offer an explanation.
You may have given the (a possible) answer yourself. It's because those legionaries were not just aboard ship to stand around and be transported. There was still a big fleet out there that would've become mostly ineffective without marines on board. It is, after all, not necessary to suppose that all legionaries aboard this fleet were even supposed to be part of the expeditionary army.
There was also a Roman Fleet being destroyed utterly by a storm these years (in fact, more than once seem Romans fleets to be caught out by storms, thus nature perhaps contributing strongly to the prolongement of the war).
If we go by the above crew numbers then this storm must have dwarfed modern incidents like the Titanic (<2000 losses) or the sinking of German refugee ships in the Baltic Sea 1945 (several times between 5000 and 10000 losses), and would constitute the greatest loss in the history of not only civilian but also military navigation, if we are consequential.
But who has been really ready to suggest that?
Quote:Meanwhile, a new puzzle arises: on these ships, 40,000 legionaries were transported. Why did Regulus use only 15,000 men once he was in Africa? Lancell's History of the First Punic War does not offer an explanation.
It
could be that those remained on the ship and operated along the coast, because to supply an army by ship is much easier than by land transport. More probably though the numbers given are just defective.
Quote:Vortigern Studies:23af9dc5 Wrote:Jona Lendering:23af9dc5 Wrote:I think this was the biggest battle of Antiquity
Like I quoted earlier, Constantine vs. Licinius together had more than 260.000 in the field. And was Darius III not supposed to have had an army numbering 300.000 or something at Gaugamela?
According to Zosimus, I understood; but can we check it? It sounds like the usual exaggerated figures. Ecnomus, on the other hand, is based on the counting of ships, which are (as I understand it) more or less reliable. But I would be glad to give the great Constantine the greatest battle.
Counted by whom? And how did he count them? Are those averages real or theoretical?
No, that won't do. If you don't have conflicting numbers from another source it's not done to discredit the whole source (Zosimus) because you may have some doubts. I know this is how some historians operate, but their negative opinion should be based on something more than that - they are trying to ignore the source, after all.
So, Constantine vs. Licinius it is...
Quote:There was also a Roman Fleet being destroyed utterly by a storm these years (in fact, more than once seem Romans fleets to be caught out by storms, thus nature perhaps contributing strongly to the prolongement of the war).
Actually, three fleets; the first one was, according to Polybius, 364 ships, of which 80 ships survived. If this is correct, about 100 000 men must have drawned. This is about 10% of Italy's grown-up men. That would make us hesitate; and personally, I find it hard to imagine.
However, there is some confirmation. In the year following this disaster, the Romans were still doing fine (capturing Palermo), but after that, their war effort suddenly diminishes. I think that this may be the result of manpower shortage on the countryside.
Quote:I know this is how some historians operate, but their negative opinion should be based on something more than that - they are trying to ignore the source, after all.
I agree that the burden of proof rests on those who want to deny the evidence of a source. However, I think we can safely assume that when ancient authors start to enumerate the numbers of troops in a battle, they are always exaggerating, something that was already recognized in Antiquity (e.g., Livy, Arrian). So, I think that a reasonable case can be made against believing numbers. There are exceptions (Thucydides), but they are precisely that: exceptions.
The numbers of navies appear to be less subject to exaggeration. Herodotus' numbers of Xerxes' fleet and the Greek navies are usually accepted as correct; the same holds for the numbers of ships in Thucydides, Ephorus, Nearchus, and Hieronymus of Cardia (as quoted by Arrian and Diodorus).
I think that naval numbers are more accurate than army numbers because the number of ships is something that humans can count. "Three hundred fifty quinqueremes" is possible, but "twenty thousand legionaries" is not.
Quote:I think that naval numbers are more accurate than army numbers because the number of ships is something that humans can count. "Three hundred fifty quinqueremes" is possible, but "twenty thousand legionaries" is not.
Good point. You need to be careful though with going '350 * assumed crew = x', because the sources for that assumed crew for a type of ship are absolutely tiny - apart from the trireme. Moreover, there is evidence that heavily undermanned, sometimes older galleys would be added to the fleet as reserve ships. For battle, those would then be left on shore and its crew divided over other galleys bringing their rowing complement up to full strength.
Hi Jona
Interesting subject, I partially treated that in another post in the Greek Army forum.
1) You say that " I think that naval numbers are more accurate than army numbers because the number of ships is something that humans can count" Unfortunately this argument is flawed, according to that it would be easier to count Roman armies since writers just have to count the number of legions, then think about Livius and how many times he "duplicates" legions.
2) The same argument about the full strength of legions arises for ships, they were never at the full complement of crewmen. As I Pointed in another thread galley fleets were regularly undermanned, and only in case of necessity were rowers recruited, that meant that in any given battle no ship, except maybe capital ships, have their full crew.
3) Besides, Belloch long time ago noted that the numbers for the 1st Punic War in which fleets of quinquerremes only are regularly reported werre in fact the sum of all type of warships, and I suspect even then the numbers are inflated.
4) To sum up, based on reliable evidence for other periods, I think the maximum size for a field army in ancient times would be around 50.000, most much smaller, fleets could muster for a single action probably over that number, but certainly not much over that. This is based on an historical comparative analysis and the structure of supply systems in Ancient times.