Ancient army numbers

[Macedon]

I actually had prepared a huge answer regarding the other topic you chose to ramble in Peter, addressing all your "points" as politely as I could. Unfortunately, I hadn't read the totally inappropriate answer you wrote in this thread or I would never have made the effort. Have a nice time pretending to know about ancient military history, I hope you will grow up to be an adequate contributor in this forum. I do not need to waste precious time on someone who has no respect whatsoever in people he does not know in a forum we pride in that has nothing to do with the amateurish Total War forums it seems you were schooled in.

Btw, you were right about the prodromoi taking part in the battle of Gaugamela, I had totally forgotten of their part there. At least for that i thank you.

[Tomenable]

Sorry guys for getting a bit irritated yesterday.

Btw, you were right about the prodromoi taking part in the battle of Gaugamela, I had totally forgotten of their part there. At least for that i thank you.

I was also right in my other points (IMHO) so no need to offend me and call an "amateur" just because my reply was a bit harsh in tone (but still substantial in content) as I was irritated (I had a bad day yesterday + your replies only added fuel to the fire - but I say sorry now). Instead of getting grumpy & gas-bag, I suggest you better reply to the content-related parts of my posts from yesterday - if you think that you can prove my points wrong. I spent too much time writing that to be wasted now.

I actually had prepared a huge answer

Yeah that's what you do very well... :mrgreen:

Each time I check if you replied to my post, I see a huge wall (Chinese wall) of text - usually in several posts posted one after another instead of 1 (so I have to turn pages to see everything).

Quite annoying.

Try to post everything in 1 post if possible (the "Edit" button is not here for no purpose).

with the amateurish Total War forums it seems you were schooled in.

No I was schooled in a Polish history forum but I post on a few English-language forums too.

Have a nice time pretending to know about ancient military history,

Compared to these of Paralus, your posts also look like posted by someone who writes a lot (walls of text), but there is not much content, knowledge, or reasonable arguments there...

And I admit that Ancient military history is not my primary area of interest (I am more interested in Medieval, Early Modern Era military history) - nothing to be ashamed of, though.

But I of course have read Ancient primary sources* and some books on Ancient warfare.

*In translation. So if you read Greek, you have some kind of an advantage. OTOH, I think that relying on published, "official" translations is better than on your translation / interpretation.

[Tomenable]

Sorry guys for getting a bit irritated yesterday.

Btw, you were right about the prodromoi taking part in the battle of Gaugamela, I had totally forgotten of their part there. At least for that i thank you.

I was also right in my other points (IMHO) so no need to offend me and call an "amateur" just because my reply was a bit harsh in tone (but still substantial in content) as I was irritated (I had a bad day yesterday + your replies only added fuel to the fire - but I say sorry now). Instead of getting grumpy & gas-bag, I suggest you better reply to the content-related parts of my posts from yesterday - if you think that you can prove my points wrong. I spent too much time writing that to be wasted now.

[Hanny]

Guys let's not forget logistics. No matter what an ancient author says, there is no way some army could defy the simple need for food amd water. Just to give an idea, the average army had at least an equal sized supply train and camp foower trail. Which means 300 thousand would mean 600 thousand individuals. The average individual drinks 2.5-3 liters of water a day, but in southern Europe/Middle east it's likely more. Let's pick 3. So that gives us a whopping 1.8 million liters of water every day.

Surface water flowing at 3m a sec, yields a volume of 2.4m ( water sped is slower under the surface and is .8 of surface speed)@ width/depth of the river, a small stream of 2.5 m width and 1 m depth, could be typicaly around 45% of the total area as moving water, so 1.125 sq m a sec.

Total water volume capacity in an hour. 1.125@3600=4050 sq m of water. 1,233,481 litres an hour.

Water requirement was not a logictical limitation.


Food, ignoring any animal portage.
600k persons @30lbs each on average carry capacity, is 180,000,000 lbs forward lift a day.Enough to maintain themselves for 10 days min consumption. Moving at 10 miles a day, means they cover an area of 100 miles depth, by width of advance, assume that to be 10 miles, so 1000 sq miles. 1000 sq miles of region of the same population size of Punic period Italy, ie 28 per sq miles, means the food stored/grain in fields, in a 2 crop a year system, in that 1000 sq miles, is enough to feed 28000 for 6 months, which is 3@180@28000=15120000 lbs. If half is confiscated, 7,560,000 lbs is used to feed the passing army in a 10 day period.

10 days requirement 600,000@3@10=180,000,000lbs, less 7,560,000 confiscated, which is 4 days requirements repalced during pasage.

If the Army confiscates over a 20 mile frontage;100@20=2000 sq miles, @28 a sq mile, is 3@180@56,000=3,0240,000 lbs, if half confiscated, its close to meeting demand with supply from 20 miles by the 10 miles distance covered.

Which means that food requirement was not a logistical limit to the numbers given in the example you gave.

Asia Minor.
2 field system, average yearly crop, 16o tons a sq mile.

[Hanny]

- The average speed of a pre-industrial armies is considered about 20 kms a day (some 12 miles)
- The average length of a column for mixed armies (yes, you forgot horses and carts in your fine calcualtion) is considered 1 meter per man. Because that indeed are the calculations of the German General Staff in the late 19th Century (the Schlieffen Plan is based on it, for example) we can safely reduce it to 0.75 meter per man for Ancient armies.[/quote]

Romans average more 18mpd so did Macededonians at 15, so nope.
The Schlieffen War Plan: What Impact did Logistics contribute to the Plan's
Failure? http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/ww...mber08.pdf
This plan calls for each Coprs of 30k to be supplied by 300 tons a day, 4200,000/30k=140 munits of 30k, so that a daily requirement of 140*300=42,000 tons a day.
Quote:
Using your numbers, they would consume 21,600 tons of food just for the men during this time of "closing in".
Or to put it another way, the Persain logistical needs of 24 days, is equal to 2 Germans of the same number in WW1.
Quote:
Let's take it 1 horse per 10 men, this would make 60,000 horses. This would mean 14,400 tons of horse fodder while the army is standing still (so no chance for grazing, which anyways is overrated by armchair generals). This gives you another 7,200 carts and another 28 km blocked by them.
Unlike people who post what is not to be found in Delbrucks book, or the Schiffelen plan, and cannot count, 14000/60k horses is 28,800,000 lbs for 60,000 hores, each day your feeding them 480 lbs each.

Hand Delbruck tells us a Germaan 30k Coprs requires 14 miles depth to manouver in. 140 such formations therfore requires 140*14=1960 miles. 30k in 14 miles is 7392 men at 3 feet each, so the column is 4 wide. Since the roads were able to use 8 wide, the Persian army at the same German ratio, only needs half the German depth.
http://www.suu.edu/faculty/ping/pdf/THES...AN_000.pdf
The plan called for movement of 20 miles a day.

Quote:
Assembling one of those monster columns would require 24 days:
Fact free, 4 mph, 20 miles, a day does not equal 24 days.
Quote:
Do you see why Ancient commanders did not bring into field several hundered thousands of men even when their states theoritcally could have fielded them?
No. I do see you cannot use maths to find an answer, and cannot use the refernces you use to support your claims.
The USA Airforce can stop teaching the following then:


http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabr...br000a.htm
Coupled with their extensive use of the horse in the supply chain, the supply system of the Persian army was more effective than anything the world had ever seen and allowed the world's largest armies to remain deployed far from home for months on end.

Guess why Malborough adopted a special kind of cart to transport food.

Dont need to guess, he adopted it, a light weight low capcity 2 wheeled wagon so it could keep pace with his foot movement,it was only used to carry munitions, not food which was done by the Royal wagoon Train a completly seperate orgainization that relied on 12k equids and 400 bullock carts, and river barges that moved the bulk of the supplies.

http://www.unisa.ac.za/contents/facultie...ESPONT.pdf

This says it was done, by use of naval logistics, not that it could not be done.

3000 ships at 80 tons each is a sea lift of 240,000 tons,

You can find the level of fodder in Thrace for the fodder per acre in Crevald, there is masses avaialble, the Thracians and Greeks provided 300k for the Persian invasion, at 20% MPR and Tharicians being half the total, we get a Thraician Skudra ( persain satrapy through which the Persiand marched) pop level of 750,000, c 80,000 sq miles.


1700,000 Mil, rest non coms, total 4200,000 men in three columns, is 1400,000 per column. The Mil element of each column in 566,666, is an 8 wide column of march. 70833 men long.( column is 8*70833) at 3 feet per man this is a frontage of 24 feet, and depth of 212449 feet. Persian units were in decimal, so 566 units, with 10 paces between units when moveing yields:5660 feet, for Mil only total of 218109 feet inc space between formations. Thats 40 miles depth and road space for the Persain Military.

Non coms, these are the herders of sheep etc, and are even less road bound than the mil, some will be on the road and some not, but the mil element sets the pace at 20 miles a day, marching for 5 hours of daylight to achieve 20 miles, the same as Romans were acustomed to doing. The non coms would be spread futher in frontage than the mil march column, and the secured space for this would be 30 mins to either side of the column which would be the min the column would cover to prevent from surpise attack, this is 4 miles frontage, and the mil mtd elements cover this area as the column advances. 4 miles frontage and the same depth as the mil element, is a box 4x40=160 sq miles, with 833,337k people in it, lets double the depth to 80 miles,giving the non coms 4*80=320 sq miles to graze and move in, the Persain mil elements are in the first 40 miles and then there is another 80 miles of only non coms. Total depth of the column is 120 miles, the mil elemenst are in the front 40 and the non coms spread over that, plus 80 more miles, total erea the coumn comprises, is 32 miles frontage and 120 miles deep.

Think of this ( the mil element) like a Roman column that can wheel to face any threat, with non coms on either flank than fold back away from any threat, the mil column moving mostly on the roads and faster than the non coms, and is embedded and leading a compact column inside a large box area of slower moving non coms, that the mil element stretches back into for roughly half the total depth.

The cav elements of the army therefore cover the 20 miles at a slow trot, 8mph, so it takes 2.5 hours to cover the daily advance of 20 miles, 2 hours grazing and .5 hours care, for the mounts leaves 3/4 hours of daylight, so it can move to each side of the Inf column for 2 hours to procure supplies and return with it to the column. The column is therfore power projecting its mtd elements 32 miles, making each days advance cover 32 miles frontage and 20 miles depth, ie 32*20=640 sq miles is covered by procurment elements for supplies, average poulation for Asia minor would be c18 per sq mile, so the cerial food stocks for that area covered would be, assumig 2 crops a year, 3 lbs per person ( a very low figure for all cerial crops but wheat at 3lbs a person will suffice) 3*18*640*176=6,082,560 lbs in the fields or in storage bins as these is the number value of crops to sustain 18 people per sq mile every 6 months.

1400000 men at 3 lbs a day require 4,200,000 lbs of cerials day, and the column is each day moving over land that contains 6,082,560 lbs to confiscate.

They dont need to carry any supplies of there own if they simply want to take want they need from the population they move through. Persian Skudra with a pop level of 750,000 people has enough crops in the fileds or in storage between harvest, at any point in time, to fully supply over 2 million who are passing through.

Or they can get all they need from the storage dumps H tells us where placed along the march route, or port it with them, (1400000 men at 30 lbs on average is a forward day lift of 42,000,000 lbs, c 10 days carried at any point in time)) or they can use the 3000 transport ships that H tells us supplied the march route, 3000 ships at 80 tons each is a sea lift of 240,000 tons,(480000000lbs) at a consumption of 30 days duration, is 16000000 lbs a day, for 4.2 million Expedition total,that gives 4 lbs a day per person per day for 30 days.

Persain Skudra that is moved through, also inclues the bread basket Black sea region that supplied Greece grain. A single Athenian fleet of 230 ships brought in 36,800,000lbs. http://www.pontos.dk/publications/books/..._04_moreno Thre same region was suppling Greece with 13,000 tons per annum of cerial crops, 26,000,000lbs, when it was Persian controlled it supplied Persian needs. Skudra was c80,000 sq miles from Byzantium to Macedonia, so a pop density of c10 per sq mile.


Persian logistical requirements:
Skudra Thrace 250 miles to enter Macedonian lands. At 20mpd requires 25 days. Daily consumption at 3 lbs cerials per person, 4,200,000 lbs per column, three such columns.

1,400,000 Column with a forward lift of 30lbs per person: 42,000,000lbs each column can carry 10 days without any cart of horses used.

Persain fleet 3000*80=:480000000lbs Fleet can supply one column for 114 days, all three columns for 38 days.

Duration of operation 25 days.
4,200,000*25=105,000,000 lbs per column required.Total for all three, 315,000,000.

Pop in region being moved through,32 miles by 120 miles=284 square miles, at 9 per per sq mile and 25 days (384*9*3*25=259200lbs)

Army of three columns and pop of area the Army moves through total requirement.315,258,200 lbs

Available per column:
Carried by column:42,000,000 lbs
Carried by Fleet 480000000lbs/3 =160,000,000 per column.
Existing in region covered each days march at 9 person per sq mile using 2 crops a year384*9*3*176=1824768lbs).
Existing in the dumps prepared for the armys passage, zero.

Total available: 523,824,769

Persian expedition was logisticaly sound anda feasible mil operation, using the numbers given by H.

[Hanny]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6vnkt...15&f=false

Attica 350,000 population, 2500 sq klicks of land gave 139 people a sq klick, compared to Persia 6.25.

When Athens lost 40,000 of its citizens in sicly in 415,http://www.ancientgreekbattles.net/Pages/47932_Population.htm it had sent 40,000/71,500, ie 55% of its males of mil age off to war in Sicliy, and lost almost all of them.

Persian 2.6 million mil age males sent to Greece, froma male age range that was conscripted for 10 years mil service fo all, from its 50 million population was 5.2 sent of to war.

Persians who invented naaval logistics of a scale never before practised, but cant achive a tenth of what the Greeks who imitated them?.

[Marja]

I don't think it's particularly useful to compare military mobilization per male citizen across countries. Citizenship worked differently between Athens and Sparta, let along between Athens, the Delian League as a whole, Sparta, Persia, and the Persian Empire as a whole.

I think it's more useful to compare military mobilization for the total population, including non-citizens, slaves, allies, and subjects. With the other members of the Delian league subsidizing the Athenian navy, it makes sense to consider the entire Delian league as one unit, to consider the Roman Republic and the Socii as one unit, etc. This also reduces statistical noise due to rounding-off army sizes, mis-estimating any one city's population, etc. This assumes that the economic costs of withdrawing so many people from production are more pressing constraints than the total numbers of adult male citizens.

I also think it's important to cross-compare military mobilization between different societies with the same social structures surrounding military mobilization. For example, different societies with feudal systems should have similar mobilization levels, different societies with professional armies with terms above ten years should have similar mobilization levels, and different societies with citizen armies with terms under one year should have similar mobilization levels.

That's leaving aside logistical constraints, which may not be hard limits, on the size of any one field army.

[Hanny]

I don't think it's particularly useful to compare military mobilization per male citizen across countries. Citizenship worked differently between Athens and Sparta, let along between Athens, the Delian League as a whole, Sparta, Persia, and the Persian Empire as a whole.

You have to have the human aset before you can mobolise it for use, thats what is being measured, that Persai mobolised males from recently subdued regions and took them to the other side of the Empire, filled the dual role of makeing them hostages for their regions behavoir, and removed the male mil age element from that region that would lead any insurection, that they were of limited mil combat value is largely imaterial, as porters they perform a more usfull role in logistical support. Just as every hoplite had his slave/helot and was looked down asa second rate soldier. So if another question is teeth to tail we measure differetly.

Bottom line Athens Sparta and all the Greeks mobolised 6%-25% of mil age males, but Persia when it did 5.2% is deemed to be a distortion of reality.

I think it's more useful to compare military mobilization for the total population, including non-citizens, slaves, allies, and subjects.

Depends what question you want to answer, and if the data is there to find. The most basic question is why can greeks, and every one else in history, mobolise at a level far in excess of persian mobolization levels and yet it is the Persian numbers that are considered wrong.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/morris/120511.pdf

Levels of military participation
Ferejohn and Rosenbluth speak of “full mobilization” in classical Greece. But what does
this mean? Reliable numbers are very hard to come by, but there has to be a quantitative
basis to the discussion. There’s necessarily a lot of guesswork in the figures I offer, but
here are a few cases to set some parameters.
At Marathon in 490 BC, the Athenians fielded 9,000 hoplites. They took no
cavalry, and must also have left some troops in the city; if they had a total armed force of
10,000-15,000, out of a total resident population of maybe 200,000-250,000 in Attica, we
get MPR = 4-6%.
At Salamis in 480 BC, the Athenians had 180 ships. We can probably assume that
they manned them all (though perhaps not at full strength of 180-200 men) from the
population of Attica, requiring between 27,000 (skeleton crews) and 36,000 men. If the
population of Attica was roughly the same as in 490, MPR = 11-18%.

Hannibal's Carthage had c3.7 million people, he set out for Italy with 102k, sent 19k to Carthage, left 15k in Spain with his brother, c136k is 4%.Why cannot persia sent 5.25 of to war?.

Barborossa was refernced earlier, and Germany 81 million put 3.8 mill into the Field Army, 1.2mill into the Repalcement army, 150k in the Waffen SS, 1.68 mill into the LW and 404k in the Navy for a total of 7,234,000, a mil mobolization of 8.9million of total population, a 10.9 mobolization. But thats misleading because males of mil age are what are used for warfighting, and they are different % of population, not the whole of it, all males in Germamys pop were 48.1 million, and 5.6 million of them were 60+ in 1939 so not avaialble, 15 million males never reached mil age, so the number of mil age males, was 27,500,000, and Germany mobolised 32% of its mil age males for its armed forces, the same ratio that Brunt found for Rome. Germany had 31.9% of its male population under 16, while SU had 45%, 12.2 over 60, to SU 6.2% and the SU over twice (200 million)the base pop level, meaning that as the war went on, the SU had more males reach mil age, less aged to support. if we only had that kind of data for other periods.

I found the authors use of SU losses in ww2 to be a good fit for estimating casulties effects for an ancient society.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6sAft...es&f=false




Some links of intrest

http://wih.sagepub.com/content/1/1/3.full.pdf

http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/viewFile/1861/3491

[Marja]

Going by Polybius, the Roman Republic and the Socii mobilized well over 200,000 in 225 B.C.E. I came up with 215,600 but that required some interpolation: alae sociorum, stronger than the legiones, to go with the legiones in Southern Italy and Sicily, and separate forces from Etruria and elsewhere in the north. Polybius gives military manpower census totals for those areas but not army size totals for the contingents there.

Going by Livius, the Roman Republic and the Socii mobilized more than 300,000 in 211 B.C.E. I came up with a maximum of 337,500 by taking Livius' legion counts [probably on the high end], taking the full strength of each legio [4,200 infantry and 300 cavalry] and the higher full strength of each ala sociorum [6,300 infantry and 900 cavalry] and adding the fleet.

That's more than 6% military mobilization for something intermediate between a citizen army and a professional one. Though about 1% seems to be more common for ancient professional armies, assuming low count population estimates.

I am not an expert on the Achaemenid Persian Army, but the sources I've read describe a military aristocracy and a part-feudal part-professional army, so I'm inclined to estimate a lower military participation rate, closer to 1%, maybe 2%.

[Hanny]

Going by Polybius, the Roman Republic and the Socii mobilized well over 200,000 in 225 B.C.E. I came up with 215,600 but that required some interpolation: alae sociorum, stronger than the legiones, to go with the legiones in Southern Italy and Sicily, and separate forces from Etruria and elsewhere in the north. Polybius gives military manpower census totals for those areas but not army size totals for the contingents there.

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/romancensus.html
For the Campaign of 225 B.C. Rome levied five armies. As usual an army of two double legions, 25,000men, was assigned to each of the two consuls. In addition, an army of 50,000 Etruscan and Sabine militia was placed under one Praetor to guard the frontier of
Etruria in the Northwest. Another army of 20,000 Umbrian and Sarsinate levies was posted in Picenumin the Northeast under another praetor. The fifth army, with 25,000 troops, was composed of the two urban legions and allies and posted as a reserve in Rome. There were also single legions serving as garrisons in Sicily and Tarentum. (Obviously to guard against Carthage, not the Celts in the North). As the Celts did not launch their invasion in the early spring one of the Consular armies, under the consul Gaius Atilius Regulus (son of the First Punic War commander defeated at the Battle of the Bagradas Plains, SPQR), was dispatched to suppress an uprising in Sardinia. The second Consular Army, under Lucius Aemilius Papus took up a position along the Adriatic at Ariminum.

Polybios total is 700k foot and 70k mounted.http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/2*.html#23



8 Roman legions at 4500 each, from a latin population of 273,000 is a MPR of 13% not 6%.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro...2*.html#23
Each of the Consuls was in p301command of four legions of Roman citizens, each consisting of five thousand two hundred foot and three hundred horse.

So Polybios gives us 8*5500=44,000 with the 2 Cn, he goes on:

In Rome itself there was a reserve force, ready for any war-contingency, consisting of twenty thousand foot and fifteen hundred horse, all Roman citizens. Running total now 65500. He goes on: In Sicily and Tarentum were two reserve legions, each consisting of about four thousand p303two hundred foot and two hundred horse

Total latins 74300 from cenus figure of 273k latins gives us Romes MPR of 27%

Polybios gives 770k mil from a free population of c3.4 million, a MPR of 22%. http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file...Cycles.pdf

Though about 1% seems to be more common for ancient professional armies, assuming low count population estimates.

Fact free, and contradicted every book on the subject matter.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZS1Oo...bc&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Th...edir_esc=y

I am not an expert on the Achaemenid Persian Army, but the sources I've read describe a military aristocracy and a part-feudal part-professional army, so I'm inclined to estimate a lower military participation rate, closer to 1%, maybe 2%.

We can discard that number range, as fiction, as no such ratio exist for the ancient period as a MPR range.

[Marja]

Polybios total is 700k foot and 70k mounted.

I was counting the field armies and garrisons, not the military census figures.

Though about 1% seems to be more common for ancient professional armies, assuming low count population estimates.

Fact free, and contradicted every book on the subject matter.

Late Roman armies and fleets between 435,000 and 645,000 strong, out of a population between 40,000,000 and 60,000,000.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZS1Oo...bc&f=false

In-between citizen and professional armies. I discussed the example above.

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Th...edir_esc=y

Exactly which figures are you referencing? After the and of the civil wars and the formation of a long-term professional army, the Roman Army ranged between about 280,000 and 645,000. Can you point to any period when it exceeded 800,000-1,200,000/2%?

I am not an expert on the Achaemenid Persian Army, but the sources I've read describe a military aristocracy and a part-feudal part-professional army, so I'm inclined to estimate a lower military participation rate, closer to 1%, maybe 2%.

We can discard that number range, as fiction, as no such ratio exist for the ancient period as a MPR range.

Some such ratios exist, at least in Late Antiquity.

[Marja]

Total latins 74300 from cenus figure of 273k latins gives us Romes MPR of 27%

27% of the military census. The military census only counts adult male citizens. Perhaps 5% of the actual total population. Note how the census figures explode as we go from the Republican period to the Augustan period; the leading explanation is that Augustus switched from counting only adult male citizens to counting all citizens.

Polybios gives 770k mil from a free population of c3.4 million, a MPR of 22%.

Polybius give a military census of 770,000 [or so] from a free population of about 3,400,000, or a total population of on the order of 5,000,000 if we count slaves and if we count the subject provinces [as in the methods I described above].

Polybius' totals grow to at least 835,000 if we add the armies and garrisons to the military census figures, and are rather less if we only count the military census figures.

[Hanny]

Polybios total is 700k foot and 70k mounted.

I was counting the field armies and garrisons, not the military census figures.

Which is 27% MPR, and you dont get your number from your source either.

Late Roman armies and fleets between 435,000 and 645,000 strong, out of a population between 40,000,000 and 60,000,000.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZS1Oo...bc&f=false

I gave you that book to read, your numbers are not in it, not least because it does not cover the time frame you now try to enter, Brunt gives 32% as Rome Punic wars MPR.http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/people/turchin/PDF/6Republic.pdf he gives free pop at 3 million to arrive at that.

In-between citizen and professional armies. I discussed the example above.

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Th...edir_esc=y

Not to be found in that work.

Exactly which figures are you referencing? After the and of the civil wars and the formation of a long-term professional army, the Roman Army ranged between about 280,000 and 645,000. Can you point to any period when it exceeded 800,000-1,200,000/2%?

28BCE Census and Roman numbers in service. I dont do strawmen.

Some such ratios exist, at least in Late Antiquity.

Still fact free, and not to be found in Brunt. Brunt gives latin pop at 1,00,7000 and allied at 2,060,000 and with slaves a max of 4 million total population.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6vnkt...15&f=false

Attica 350,000 population, 2500 sq klicks of land gave 139 people a sq klick, compared to Persia 6.25.

When Athens lost 40,000 of its citizens in sicly in 415,http://www.ancientgreekbattles.net/Pages/47932_Population.htm it had sent 40,000/71,500, ie 55% of its males of mil age off to war in Sicliy, and lost almost all of them.

Persian 2.6 million mil age males sent to Greece, from a male age range that was conscripted for 10 years mil service fo all, from its 50 million population was 5.2 sent of to war. Your own Roman 225 example gives Rome sending 15%, so your example fails to show Persian numbers are too high as they are third of Romes in that example.

Persians who invented nalaval logistics of a scale never before parctised cant achive a tenth of what the Greeks who imitated them?.

27% of the military census. The military census only counts adult male citizens.

Only adult males serve in the Legions, thats how Romes MPR is calculated. To include all population inclding non free is to imply a mil particpiation of free and non free of equal representation existed, it did not and is why no one does it that way. Teeth to tail is no dependednt of free or slave status so does have some value for that calculation of teeth to tail ratio.

Perhaps 5% of the actual total population. Note how the census figures explode as we go from the Republican period to the Augustan period; the leading explanation is that Augustus switched from counting only adult male citizens to counting all citizens.

Not 5%, 15% 770k of 5 million is 15% your maths is deficient. So your example of Romes 15% total population to Persian not achiving more than 2% has no basis in fact, but instead show Persian numbers to be well below what Rome achieved in 225.

Polybios gives:
Latins eighty thousand foot and five thousand horse
Allies 77+66+33+24=200k

Of Romans and Campanians there were on the roll two hundred and fifty thousand footº and twenty-three thousand horse;

Total 285K.

Latins campanian and allies, 273K+200k=485K mobolised and in the field from a total poulation of 5 million, was 9.7% of total population, of free poulation and liable for mil service, 14.2% acepted into service, outy of the 22% available for mil service.


Polybios gives us, 485 not your 200k.
The allied forces in each Consular army numbered thirty thousand foot and two thousand horse. 5 The cavalry of the Sabines and Etruscans, who had come to the temporary assistance of Rome, were four thousand strong, their infantry above fifty thousand.
The levy of the Umbrians and Sarsinates inhabiting the Apennines amounted to about twenty thousand, and with these were twenty thousand Veneti and Cenomani, and thirty thousand foot and two thousand horse furnished by the allies. The lists of men able to bear arms that had been returned were as follows. Latins eighty thousand foot and five thousand horse, Samnites seventy thousand foot and seven thousand horse, 11 Iapygians and Messapians fifty thousand foot and sixteen thousand horse in all, 12 Lucanians thirty thousand foot and three thousand horse, Marsi, Marrucini, Frentani, and Vestini twenty thousand foot and four thousand horse.

You then went on to give a mid point Punic wars example, in which Rome and the Allies peaked at their MPR when 50 Legions where in service.

Polybius' totals grow to at least 835,000 if we add the armies and garrisons to the military census figures, and are rather less if we only count the military census figures.

Thats Brunt number not Polybios
www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=brunt 32% roman manpower in punic war&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Fronda Michael P.pdf?osu1046890420&ei=ruVOUJyeLaPC0QXbg4DQAw&usg=AFQjCNEcdIPJ2JH6Yg_gFqvVgtPHTMX_cQ&cad=rjt

770/835*100=92% mil mobolization level.835 being the number of males in mil age range ( excludes Bruttians, 770k being the number on rolls liable for mil service.

In 212 Rome had 230k in the field, a MPR of 27% of all males of mil age, 30% of those liable for mil service, and 7.6% of total Population.

Persia does not need to get anywhere such MPR rates to find the numbers in Herodutus.

[Marja]

I think we're talking past each other. So this is how things look to me:

I suggested that when comparing military participation rates between societies, it's often necessary to count them relative to the whole population, including allies and subject territories. (post 320348)

I think you suggested that when calculating military participation rates for the Roman Republic, it's necessary to count them relative to only the male citizen population. (post 320389)

Your technique is better for calculating the burdens of war on that citizen population within any one society. I think that my technique is better for comparing the size of armies, relative to the population or the economy between different societies. Why? Because 'citizen' can mean different things in different societies, and non-citizens fight in some societies.

I suggested that professional armies with terms more than ten years long might be associated with relatively low military participation rates relative to the whole population, and noted two strength figures for the late Roman Empire [via Treadgold but the lower comes from Ioannes Lydos and the higher from Agathias with some support from Zosimus].

I suggested that citizen armies with terms less than one year long might be associated with relatively high military participation rates relative to the whole population. Maybe citizen armies was the wrong phrase, because I'm trying to get at numbers which can be compared between societies. I couldn't find any useable figures for these, but I could find two possibilities for the middle Roman Republic would could represent an intermediate form between the "citizen army" and the "professional army."

I think you challenged my interpretation of the figures for the middle Roman Republic. I'm not an expert on the period. I could go over this in another post though.

I think you challenged the existence of the figures for the late Roman Empire. Or the time frame. I'm not sure why the time frame is important. It's pretty widely accepted that the late Roman Empire was stretched to its limits, due to cost and due to the difficulty of finding recruits, in trying to support an army which fell short of those paper strengths. I think this implies certain limits on the size of professional armies with terms more than ten years long.

Have I misunderstood your position?

[Virilis]

Ladies and gentlemen!

Very interesting discussion you have here indeed! Let's also keep the tone of the discussion at the same high level, please !