05-20-2005, 03:47 PM
floofthegoof
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? I find that surprising.
As for the greek cities fielding 100.000 men , it is quite another thing. I doubt there could be as much as 100.000, but anyway, imagine Athens raise an army of 15.000 to march to Plataea to do battle there, they only need to ftake his arms, and a servant to carry them and something to eat for several days. In Medieval times 1-2 week campaigns, in which everybody took with themselves what they were going to eat was very common. But to organise an army in Asia from levies all around the empire, bring it together and move it a long travel away from your bases is quite another thing.
As for the "nations" themselves they are very unequal, Libya was basically desert, the Persian empire only dominated a small fringe of "India". They were nothing comparable to a Greek city general levy of citizens. They were just groups of followers raised by local chiefs under the command of the Satrapa, greek cities were able to mobilize a far larger percentage of thier population, that was one of the advantages of citizen organization.
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? I find that surprising.
As for the greek cities fielding 100.000 men , it is quite another thing. I doubt there could be as much as 100.000, but anyway, imagine Athens raise an army of 15.000 to march to Plataea to do battle there, they only need to ftake his arms, and a servant to carry them and something to eat for several days. In Medieval times 1-2 week campaigns, in which everybody took with themselves what they were going to eat was very common. But to organise an army in Asia from levies all around the empire, bring it together and move it a long travel away from your bases is quite another thing.
As for the "nations" themselves they are very unequal, Libya was basically desert, the Persian empire only dominated a small fringe of "India". They were nothing comparable to a Greek city general levy of citizens. They were just groups of followers raised by local chiefs under the command of the Satrapa, greek cities were able to mobilize a far larger percentage of thier population, that was one of the advantages of citizen organization.
AKA Inaki
