05-20-2005, 04:46 PM
You think it is reasonable to think the persians could field an army of 1 illion, so then why is that European countries in the Napoleonic period, for instance, could not? Why is that there is a long evolution from the small armies of the XV century that some historians have called military revolution, in which European countries painfully were adquiring the logistical and planning abilities to raise and keep on the field large armies, but the Persian empire had it so long before?
Same reason the Indians were building huge and beautiful cities while the inhabitants of Northern Europe were just developing farming communities.
Same reason we took 2000 years after Hero to develop the steam turbine. We are constantly finding that ancient civilizations had reached stages of development that are only just coming back within our grasp. No modern metallurgist has yet been able to replicate the feat of Ancient Greek metalworkers in turning bronze over their shield rims without folds, cuts or creases. The Incas ruled a huge empire without horse transport.
Same reason the Indians were building huge and beautiful cities while the inhabitants of Northern Europe were just developing farming communities.
Same reason we took 2000 years after Hero to develop the steam turbine. We are constantly finding that ancient civilizations had reached stages of development that are only just coming back within our grasp. No modern metallurgist has yet been able to replicate the feat of Ancient Greek metalworkers in turning bronze over their shield rims without folds, cuts or creases. The Incas ruled a huge empire without horse transport.
