Number of legions at Zama

[Mark Hygate]

Hi Mark.
You must be reading a different Polybius Book 6.20.8/9.  It is clear to me, that Polybius is only talking about Velites, Hastati, Princeps and Triari, ie actual infantry and not non combatants.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro...us/6*.html

"When they have chosen the number determined on — that is when the strength of each legion is brought up to four thousand two hundred, or in times of exceptional danger to five thousand — the old system was to choose the cavalry after the four thousand two hundred infantry, but they now choose them first, the censor selecting them according to their wealth; and three hundred are assigned to each legion."

Book 6.21.9 does not state 4000 more men, but if the legion is greater than 4000:

"They divide them so that the senior men known as triarii number six hundred, the principes twelve hundred, the hastati twelve hundred, the rest, consisting of the youngest, being velites. If the legion consists of more than four thousand men, they divide accordingly, except as regards the triarii, the number of whom is always the same."

Hi Nick,




Yes, I am using a different translation normally, although I have used the one you linked before, but now have to hand a real copy of Robin Waterfield's of 2010.  It's certainly a more literary translation and therefore easier to read, but I certainly hope not inaccurate.  Having just checked our bits, certainly the important detail is the same.




Just for this post, therefore, I'd like to start with only the last paragraph you quoted.  Firstly, however, I am completely sure I didn't suggest 4000 more men.




The first sentence of your quote details the 600+1200+1200+"the rest".  The next sentence starts off by implicitly suggesting that the numbers just mentioned add up to 4000.  Apart from any other reason that's one that very strongly suggests that the Velites number 1000.




This is also why, therefore, given that the 4200 number is clearly stated, I am sure the 180 are 95% of the 'missing' 200.  I am also fairly convinced, simply by omission because the other numbers are always detailed, that Polybius himself doesn't know how many Velites there are!  He may well have gotten his detail from his source(s) just as we see it written, but then realised he never got the actual Velite numbers and thus didn't state them.




So, can I convince you of the 1000 number?

[Nick the Noodle]

Hi Mark

At present, you cannot convince me that the number of velites is lower than that of the hastati or princeps.

Of course, this does not mean I am right and you are wrong.

I will get the book you quoted.

---

How do you add reputation? The recent activity here has brightened my day.

[Steven James]

I'll have a look at details later, but using Appian to confirm Polybius seems tenuous at best. 

Shame on me. I guess it is off to reeducation camp for me so I can conform to group think.

[Nick the Noodle]

Hi Steven

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying I think you are wrong. We'll just have to disagree.

The history of the history of the battle of Zama is quite interesting. The earliest author, Polybius, states it was a near run battle. Livy essentially follows suit, but with a greater pro Roman bias. Appian has Hannibal's veterans beaten by Scipio's already combat weary foot, not the cavalry. Cassius Dio essentially has Hannibal running away, and caught and defeated while retreating. As time moves forward, so does Romes opinion of Hannibal diminish.

[Mark Hygate]

.........................................

 

And speaking of doctrine, everyone seems stuck on a consul having four legions of 5,000 men. Well does he on every occasion? What if he decided due to necessity, to change his four legions of 5,000 men to five legions of 4,000 men? Has anyone besides myself considered this option?

 

The Romans have a lot of military doctrines that unfortunately, have confused many an ancient historian.

 

Ok, I provided proof of Polybius’ use of numbers for Utica. Every time I post evidence it gets ignored. Why is that? Are you Mark, willing to reply to my Utica research?

 

Steven,

On the first, no, I wouldn't have considered that option because I don't think it ever happened - nor actually could it in that form.  I had enjoyed many a book/article on the Roman Army in the past, but it wasn't until 2012 that I deliberately took the time to undertake a bit of personal research into the organisation of the Roman Army (and on which, for several different reasons haven't yet finished to my satisfaction) and even joined this Forum.  I particularly undertook to review as many primary sources as I could, where significantly relevant, and added to my personal collection.

The overall result is that, like with this Polybius issue over the number of Velites, I found what seem to be a number of anomalies and, particularly with this one issue, an organisational issue that some or many past authors seem, to me (and I am quite aware how arrogant that might seem) have made a primary mistake.  In taking that leap, and then linking it to the other primary information we have; my own 'eureka' moment resulted in a belief that the Roman Army structure was simple, homogeneous, contiguos and long lasting.  Fundamentally I don't think the structure changed very much (there are some tweaks) between the structure that Polybius describes that is possibly from 400BC, or earlier, and still existed 8-900 years later.

To me, as a military man and organisational enthusiast, let alone a belief that it's the tactical and even strategic reasons to organise an army that are paramount - then the above made such sense.

So, to answer your questions succinctly:

1 - No, a standard Consular Army was 2 Roman + 2 Allied Legions.  It could be added to, even doubled and combined like at Cannae.

2 - No, I believe the Romans had one standard doctrine (with the Polybian-style armies) and therefore often won regardless of whom the Consul was because it was so good and it was a rare General who 'tweaked' things to do something clever.  It was this doctrine that Hannibal used against them at Cannae (a battle which now makes perfect sense to me) and for which he fell at Zama when it was indeed so 'tweaked'.

3 - I could try and reply to what you have written about the battle of Utica.  I am late to this thread and haven't read it.  However, I strongly suspect that I would only be trying to find 'excuses' for the numbers whilst trying to fit my model.  The issue is that our separate 'eureka' moments are just poles apart.  I just see something so simple and easier for me to understand, which fights against a numeric-mystical linkage I would find hard to accept.

PS - I certainly wouldn't wish to be "defeatist".  That research I did and still try and add to here and elsewhere has established that all we have are a series of ancient writings and archeological evidence that appears simply as a non-linear set of 'dots' which we try and connect.  I've now charted my 'best fit line' and have dealt with all but one of the deviations except the one true outlier.....my near namesake!

---

....................

Syphax's army, at c60k is too large.  Engels in his book on the logistics of the Macedonian army categorically proves that field armies cannot be stronger than 50k.

Nick,

I must ask in follow up - are you suggesting that 'Ancient' Field armies cannot exceed 50,000?  What about Cannae (as an obvious one)?

I'm not aware of Engels work, but will see what I can find out......

[Nick the Noodle]

Hi Mark

Essentially, a mobile field army is limited to 50k. This is due to the necessity of feeding the pack animals that feed the army. However, this rule can be broken if it can be supplied from a superior source. A good example is having the army supplied by sea, hence the reason for the battle of Thermopylae as an example. Another example, is if an army is semi permanently encamped, thus can have several sources of supply, such as at Cannae or Gaugamela. That's why I retracted my erroneous statement about Syphax's army at Uttica being too large.

[Michael Collins]

I'll retract my last comment.  Syphax's army was in winter quarters, and not a mobile field force.

I'll have a look at details later, but using Appian to confirm Polybius seems tenuous at best.  The obvious example is that Appian states 50k in Hannibals army at Zama, while Polybius states 40k.

Nick,
Polybius doesn`t actually state 40,000 for the army - that`s a figure that many folk tend to derive from "...twenty thousand killed and nearly the same number of prisoners." (Polybius 15.14). Which may not be the entire army; as the cavalry had supposedly routed and there may have been a lot of infantry who made for the hills. That is, if you believe in Polybius` account in the first place hmmmmm... and you want the stats to add up for Polybius` grand battle of Zama?

[Steven James]

Mark wrote:

The overall result is that, like with this Polybius issue over the number of Velites, I found what seem to be a number of anomalies and, particularly with this one issue, an organisational issue that some or many past authors seem, to me (and I am quite aware how arrogant that might seem) have made a primary mistake.

 

Well I don’t find it arrogant. Not enough scholars are questioning traditional views. However, all research has to be grounded and supported by mass of evidence.

 

Mark wrote:

In taking that leap, and then linking it to the other primary information we have; my own 'eureka' moment resulted in a belief that the Roman Army structure was simple, homogeneous, contiguos and long lasting. Fundamentally I don't think the structure changed very much (there are some tweaks) between the structure that Polybius describes that is possibly from 400BC, or earlier, and still existed 8-900 years later.

 

That is exactly my conclusion. Centuries, maniples, cohorts were part of the structure, from the beginning of the republic to the sack of Rome. However, to prove that, you, like myself, will have to then cover those periods to prove your point. That is the hard lesson I have learnt.

 

Mark wrote:

No, I believe the Romans had one standard doctrine (with the Polybian-style armies) and therefore often won regardless of whom the Consul was because it was so good and it was a rare General who 'tweaked' things to do something clever.

 

Well, that ignores many of the doctrines found in the primary sources. Does that mean its goodbye to the doctrine of the extraordinarii? What about the doctrine of picked troops? Why did Scipio in 209 BC leave Silanus with 3,000 infantry and 500 cavalry, while Scipio moved south and attacked Cartagena? If I had the time and inclination, I could post more.

 

Mark wrote:

I could try and reply to what you have written about the battle of Utica.

 

It shows how Polybius arrived at his numbers for the Carthaginian army. For me, it has shown one should show caution when employing Polybius. Also is numbers for the Telamon campaign are flawed as well, plus many other campaigns.

 

Mark wrote:

I am late to this thread and haven't read it. However, I strongly suspect that I would only be trying to find 'excuses' for the numbers whilst trying to fit my model.

 

Which is saying you will not have an open mind. Well I respect your honesty. However, too many academics have the same approach, ignoring evidence that contravenes their theory. That is the problem, they have a theory first and then look for evidence to support it. A good historian should let the primary sources tell the story.

 

Mark wrote:

The issue is that our separate 'eureka' moments are just poles apart. I just see something so simple and easier for me to understand, which fights against a numeric-mystical linkage I would find hard to accept.

 

I am use to derogative comments about the Pythagorean system from this forum. No one can find the decency to call it “Pythagorean.” Belittling is the only standard. Well Mark, without that “numerical-mystical linkage,”

 

Can you explain why there were only 35 Roman tribes?

Can you explain why four tribes how and the reason why four tribes were added in 387 BC?

Can you explain why two additional tribes were added in 299 BC?

Can you explain why the Romans describe their history in relation to the growth of a man?

Can you give a step by step account of how a Roman levy is conducted?

Can you give me the exact age bracket of the velites?

Can you give me the exact age bracket of the hastati?

Can you give me the exact age bracket of the princeps?

Can you give me the exact age bracket of the triarii?

Can you give me the exact age bracket of the Roman cavalry?

Livy states that those men from the city legions under 35 years of age were to man the ships. Can you tell me who they were?

Marcus Regulus was left in Africa in 256 BC with 40 ships. Do you know why he was left with 40 ships?

Livy states that a Latin cohort acting as a garrison force had 460 men. Oh wait, he later claims 470 men. Did Livy arrive at that figure or was it his source? If he was using a source, can you name that source?

Why does Polybius’ figure for the Roman army at the Trebbia differ from Livy’s figure?

 

For the campaign of 193 BC, the figures provided by Livy amount to 32,100 men (31,000 infantry and 1,100 cavalry):

 

Thermus      15000 allied infantry       500 allied cavalry

Flaminius      3000 Roman infantry     100 Roman cavalry

                      5000 allied infantry       200 allied cavalry

Fulvius          3000 Roman infantry     100 Roman cavalry

                      5000 allied infantry       200 allied cavalry

Total           31000 infantry              1100 cavalry

 

Can you determine which numbers are rounded and the method (if any) Livy or his source has employed to arrive at such numbers?

 

Believe it or not, the Pythagorean system makes it possible to answer every question.

 

Mark wrote:

PS - I certainly wouldn't wish to be "defeatist". That research I did and still try and add to here and elsewhere has established that all we have are a series of ancient writings and archeological evidence that appears simply as a non-linear set of 'dots' which we try and connect. I've now charted my 'best fit line' and have dealt with all but one of the deviations except the one true outlier.....my near namesake!

 

Sometimes the best fit is not the correct fit. I have found that out from personal experience. That is why I invest so much time in revision. And that is why this project is in its 15th year. In the end Mark, I believe you will write a paper based on cherry picking the evidence to conform to your theory. When you do, you will have graduated from being an amateur historian to becoming an true academic.

[Nick the Noodle]

Hi Steven.

Get your work published and peer reviewed. Even submit it as your PhD thesis. Then people will not be able to contest your posts.

[Mark Hygate]

.................. In the end Mark, I believe you will write a paper based on cherry picking the evidence to conform to your theory. When you do, you will have graduated from being an amateur historian to becoming an true academic.

Thanks Steven - that's a nicely crafted and gentle insult and I'll happily take it! 

For the first, I promise that is not my intent; especially as I am quite realistic that my research has been much narrower than I could possibly achieve in 15 years, but also because there do not seem to be, actually, that many primary sources that deal with the subject.  I am certainly concentrating on: Asclepiodotus;Livy; Polybius; Caeser; Josephus; Tactitus; Suetonius; Hyginus; Aelian; Arrian; Cassius Dio; Ammianus; Vegetius; & Maurice (Strategikon); as well as Cheeseman's work - as I literally read along my shelf.  When it comes to simple numbers quoted all over the place, then I am not trying to fit each one at all; I am too aware of numbers changing over the course of any campaign, and even some numbers not fitting the model due to circumstance (cf not achieving the desired cavalry numbers during stages of the Punic Wars due to over-straining the available supply of horses.

What I will be seeking by hopefully generating the interest to do so here, is asking for all the criticism I can get and examples (perhaps even supporting, but certainly against) that I have not been able to find myself.

The last I had to smile at as it's genuinely something I am against myself!  I am very sceptical of those who rely on the work of others and are simply measured by which 'acedemics' they quote and reference and agree with.  For I definately don't plan to do that!  I'm quite happy to be a bit rough and also to interpolate along that best fit line.....

PS - My apologies; I don't know enough about Pythagoras' other interests to use that as a descriptor with confidence; beyond the trigonometry I learned at school those many years ago.  I am, supposedly unusually for an Army Officer, able to use a map and compass with confidence! 

PPS - I will try to answer the 5th-10 'Can you's' at the weekend as part of a new post.

---

Hi Mark

Essentially, a mobile field army is limited to 50k.  This is due to the necessity of feeding the pack animals that feed the army.  However, this rule can be broken if it can be supplied from a superior source.  A good example is having the army supplied by sea, hence the reason for the battle of Thermopylae as an example.  Another example, is if an army is semi permanently encamped, thus can have several sources of supply, such as at Cannae or Gaugamela.  That's why I retracted my erroneous statement about Syphax's army at Uttica being too large.

Nick,

Thank you indeed.  I am now seriously wondering about an Amazon purchase of his work for my personal Xmas present!

I now wonder, indeed, if a 'doubled enhanced-legion Consular Army/or two standard similar Consular Armies' (and so 40,000 Inf and 4,800 Cavalry) is that size due to that restriction?

However, if it's two of the former that take different routes to the battle (cf Cannae), then why cannot they both be supplied with sufficient Mules, Oxen and Wagons?  The camp at Cannae seems otherwise to confirm to a Polybian-standard marching camp concept, rather that something more permanent and stockpiled...

Finally, I wonder if that standard applies all the way up to the Second World War?  Even then it was only the Allies that truly mechanised - German logistics was still largely horse-drawn.

[Steven James]

Mark wrote:

Thanks Steven - that's a nicely crafted and gentle insult and I'll happily take it!

 

Chuckle, chuckle, you didn’t think I was going to let you off with the “numeric- mystical linkage” comment did you? Surely not.

 

Mark wrote:

When it comes to simple numbers quoted all over the place, then I am not trying to fit each one at all; I am too aware of numbers changing over the course of any campaign, and even some numbers not fitting the model due to circumstance (cf not achieving the desired cavalry numbers during stages of the Punic Wars due to over-straining the available supply of horses.

 

If you are referring to the change of ratio from one Roman horse and three allied horses to one Roman horse and two allied horses, you are mistaken. This has nothing to do whatsoever with over-straining the supply of horses.

 

Mark wrote:

I am very sceptical of those who rely on the work of others and are simply measured by which 'acedemics' they quote and reference and agree with.

 

We do agree about a lot. Too many academic papers are riddled with some academics point of view. It is a cop out by the author of the paper. For example, when they discuss line relief, they simply repeat Connelly’s theory. In the end, you have a paper or book just ranting on about everyone else’s theories, and have nothing new to offer.

 

Mark wrote:

PS - My apologies; I don't know enough about Pythagoras' other interests to use that as a descriptor with confidence; beyond the trigonometry I learned at school those many years ago.

 

You are and have already been using the Pythagorean system. Cohorts, maniples, centuries are all part of the Pythagorean system. You cannot divorce yourself from it; they are one and the same.

 

If you want to see the Pythagorean system designed for the Romans in all its glory, read the book of revelations. How the book of revelations is connected to the Servian constitution is, as they said in the 60’s…..just mind blowing man, like far out man and can you dig it.

 

Mark wrote:

PPS - I will try to answer the 5th-10 'Can you's' at the weekend as part of a new post.

 

Surely you have better things to do with your time on the weekend. Hmm, if you do try and answer them, for me to claim you are wrong means I have to expose more of my research. Oh you are a tricky one Mark. Well played, and bravo to you.

[Nick the Noodle]

Hi Mark

Concerning: "Finally, I wonder if that standard applies all the way up to the Second World War? Even then it was only the Allies that truly mechanised - German logistics was still largely horse-drawn" the answer is yes. The desert war has each side in ascendent , depending how close they are to their main supply source. Each side lost, when it over extended its supply lines, until after the 2nd El Alamein.

[Hanny]

Syphax's army, at c60k is too large. Engels in his book on the logistics of the Macedonian army categorically proves that field armies cannot be stronger than 50k.
===================================================================================================

Fact free, Engels book uses Alexander army of 65000 and explains how it supplied itself in the field as an army.

HB after cannae, could he march on Rome?

20,000 foot@30 lbs carry capacity=60,000
5,000 mounted@50lbs =250,000
20,000 mules@240 a mule =4,800,000 lbs

Forward lift,510,000 lbs.


Consumption per man per day, 3 lbs food 5 lbs water, 20,000 a day.
consumption mule per day, 20 lbs fodder, 8 lbs water, 56,000 a day.
Consumption per horse day,20 lbs fodder, 8 lbs water, 14,000 a day.

Required each day:90,000 lbs, number of days supply of food/water/fodder carried, 5.6. (food total men 20,000@3=60,000,mounts 25,000@20=50,000)


Distance to manoever 250 miles.
Each day 15 miles, target reached in 16 days.

Apulia pop density 28 per sq mile, grain per sq mile is 15210lbs.
Sq miles covered in a day forwrd march by Hanny`s army, ( 15 miles forward and forgarrs to 5 miles each side of the adncing army) 15*10=150 sq miles@15210 lbs, Hanny can move through Apulia each day using 75,000 lbs from his stock, and aquireing back by confiscation of half the grain in the area his army covers 75,000 which is half the stored grain supply in the region he has moved through.


There is no logistical reason why Hanny cannot march on Rome through Apulia, it being an important wheat proidcing region, with the summers crops held in stores to feed itself over the winter months till next harvest.



Engles gives us Macedonian practice of 1 servent to 10 footman as porters, and 1 per 1 mounted, thats the Macedonian army on the march

HB Army for start of war with Rome was 90k foot, 12k Hoorse and 2040 mules.

Grain per day: 3 lbs a man 10 lbsa horse/mule
90,000*3=270000 a day.
14040*10=140400 a day.
Day requirement 410400.

Forward lift per day:
Mules 2040*250=510000
90,000 (foot)*30=2700000
Forward lift available without use of horses/elephants:3210000 which is 8 days grain carried, on 2040 mules and field Army can supply itself with no resupply for 8 days.

D Hoyas gives Barcid Spain 1.5 Million Population, Spain is 200,000 sq miles, and Barcid spain was about 25% of that, so 50,000 sq miles, which gives Hanny moving over friendly terr of a pop density of 30 a sq mile.

Then through hostile and neutral Gauls/Celts

France is 211209 sq miles, and if the low pop of 6 million Gauls lived in it, thats 28 per sq mile.

Italy is 116,304 sq miles, and 225 Pop of 3250000 gives it a pop density of 28 per sq mile.

It should be clear that the logistics of supply for the primary source numbers are actually sound.
180*3*28*14000=211680000 lbs available, 3210000 carried =214890000 lbs in total, / by 410400 per day consumption,means that Hanny moved over Ground that could supply him for 523 days.


Engles points out that human portage allows a man to carry 10 days grain or equivalent on him in addition to 50lbs of arms/armour, edit, Engels page 18 uses 1 mule per 50 men for non consumables Ie tents, blankets, fuel, possesions not at all how Shean and Gab then take that ratio and totaly misuse it for consumables the army could carry on it..

The other part of the problem is they give Hanny more cav orientated faster manover based army, half as many mules for many times the army size as a Roman, 102000/6200 Legio with 800 mules, = 13,160 mules for Roman amy the same size, which has a forward lift of 3290000lbs, which is 8 days supply on the mules.

So which Army manovers faster, one with 13000 mules or one with 2000?, since both have 8 days or equaivlent grain ration to move with.

10 days required supply for Hanny =4104000

How does it get the next weeks supply after exhusting what he starts with and has with him?.

How many people live in a sqaure mile?, using a 2 crop per year: lets start with 45 per sq mile, thats 180*3*45=24300 lbs of grain per sq mile the army moves through.

So after marching for 10 days, Hanny consumed 4104000, and passed through 243000 per sq mile as he manovered to draw replenishment from.

How much ground has Hanny covered in 10 days?, and how far on either side of his main column, has his manover elements gathered into supply for him?.

Lets go with Hoyas page 103 "90 miles in 10 days" when slowly manovering across southern Gaul, ( Rome manovered at 15 mpd and Hanny could go much faster when he wanted, but why was he moving so slow here we already discussed before iirc).

so that 90 miles forwards, if the forgers go no more than 5 miles either side of the column, a very conservative number, we get Hanny`s army moving through 90*10=900*24300=21870000lbs of grain, of which he needs 4104000 to maintain his stock, leaving 21459960 still to feed the pop he moved through, he has required roughly 20% of the food supply of the region.

Is 45 per sq mile too large a number?, lets try 4 ( a single family) a sq mile:180*3*4=2160*900=1944000, which is a deficit of 2160000, and his start stock of 3210000 has been reduced to 1050000lbs and he has removed 100% of the supply from the region he manovered over.

Lets try 1 person a sq mile: 180*3*1*900=486000 and 3210000 carried, and 4104000 consumed= -408000.

So at 1 a sq mile, to feed iself the foragers have to cover a greater distnce either side of the main column, lets try 10 miles each side, meaning the army covers a 20 mile frontage as it advances, 90*20=1800 sq miles covered instead of 900. 180*3*1=540*1800=927000 plus 3210000 minus 4104000 =376956 in hand. Hanny`s moved 102k men and moved forward 90 miles,on a frontage of 20 miles, meet 1800 Gallic people and removed all there food, to keep his Army close to its start supply.

What if he moves faster?, at the more usual 15 miles a day? over 1 person per sq mile.
150*20=3000 sq miles covered, 1620000 plus 3210000 minus 410400=441860 surplus, and Hannys left some behind and still carrying all he can carry.

Polybios gives us the distance Hanny moved to get to the Rhone,c700 miles, which is 14000 sq miles, so we have 180*3*1*14000=7560000 and 3210000 carried, which is a total of 10770000 and 4104000 consumed every 10 days, means that on day 26 Hannibal has consumed all supplies he has moved over and carried. He has met 14000 people, and taken all there food.

Since the Volcei certainly contained more than 14000 people, and were crushed, we know for sure that the pop density of the regions covered was higher than 1 per sq mile.

A good reason why Armies move at different speeds is the pop density of the ground they move over, lower density the army has to extend to the flanks to increase the sq miles covered to bring in the required supplies, if its a higher density, this is not required and a faster pace forward can be used.

[Nick the Noodle]

Hi Hanny

Interesting post. I don't have time to re-read Engels at present, but I'll stand by 50k max for now. Napoleon used a Corps system, each with a maximum of 50k, for the same reasons, ie supply and foraging limitations.

[Hanny]

Hi Nick

What you claim is in Engels work is not in Engels work, your mis remembering, pretty simple, the ability of armies to subsist from the population it moves through rather than be supplied from a base of supply has remained a constant since humans recoded history. Base of supply becomes a must have with the adoption of firearms, as teh weight of munitions compared to forage/food/water is reversed, where ancient armies had 90% food/fodder requirements by weight, compared to munitions, this would reverse as firearms replaced hand and missile weapons. So Alexander moving through the most densly populated regions in the Med was not an overly taxing issue. Engels details Alexanders 61k army and how it supplied itself in those and other regions of a vastly lower pop base, and it here the problem of living of the land become a problem.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_e...00&f=false

Cyrus came to power by a force march of 00s of miles, fed along it by ordering the markets to supply the marching columns and payed by the monarch. Alexnders Greece lack a market economy to perform such at feat scale.

Roth does the same for Rome pre imperial Armies,https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LfRiXN5hhCUC&pg=PA7&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

So onto the same problem for Napoleon, who fought over the densley populated regions of Europe, ( France 39 people per sq mile, Belgium 50 per sq mile Poland 8 per sq mile) along with a road net that did not exist in Alexaners period, found his corps system to fail in Spain and Russia where the pop density was to low to sustain the corps forage system. The Corps manouver system was based on 50k comes from Turenns mil maxim of that number being the amount required to invest a large fortress and still be able to advance and overrun a region. Seehttps://www.amazon.co.uk/Supplying-War-Logistics-Wallenstein-Patton/dp/0521546575 M V Creveld Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton, Chapter 2 dealing with Nappys logistics which you have not understood as munitions had to be supplied from base of supply and munition in weight now made vastly more than the 10% of Alexander period, reaching 100k musket rnds day passing along the road net in 1805, by 1812 365982 6lbs rnds, 226,000 12 lbs rnds, 53,835 8lbs rnds were motion for 314, 330, and 69 pieces of ordinance.


Corps in WBTS and Napoleonic wars were within a days march of each other, ie within 10-15 miles so were competing for the same logistics. https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle...sAllowed=y

JSTOR for instance Army Provisioning, Logistics and Strategy in the Second Half of the 17th Century
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42555013?re...b_contents