02-17-2012, 06:24 PM
Hi Paralus
Absolutely not. On the contrary, the notion that Persians could not assemble a half a million army by mobilising more than 1 million people just because they were "ancient" or... "Asian" is more than pervasive! Asian nations were the first to gather vast numbers!
During the previous century, Persians had already built on a pre-existing Median and Lydian Empires which in their turn had built over the Babylonian-Assyrian Empires. Each Empire succeded the other by overtaking leadership over long pre-existing governance structures and not by destroying these structures and then trying to re-invent the wheel. Persians were heirs of a long integration process in the Middle East and Eastern Minor Asia, thus every structure was in place, the cake was ready-made, Persians were adding only the cherry. For Persians, the Empire was all about a working low-level self-governance that ensured regional stability so as to enable a working inter-region infrastructure, well-guarded trade-routes, a seamless flow of trade, and thus a centralised tax-system, a post-office and other governmental structures, and of course the possibility to move big armies swiftly from the one edge of the Empire to the other. Certainly they would not do it every year or something but if Persian kings could not master assembling, feeding and leading 500,000 soldiers with the possibility to move them around and feed them, they had better go run a MacKebabs... not run an Empire!
- 500 BC Persians had everything in place to govern and move around 500,000 soldiers.
- 1800 AD French clearly had not, but they had their try and fared some kilometers.
But that is not an argument that they did not! Every single point out there points out that they had all the money, all the means, all the facilities and all the good reasons to gather a very big army for that campaign.
Yes, by all means. Such a campaign was not meant to last 50 or 80 years like a Roman campaign. It was supposed to be an one-off campaign that should deal with the "issue" swiftly and decisevely in the span of months. Of course for a short period it drained the Persian Empire and the Eastern Mediterranean world but then Phoenicians who were the chief-magnates of the Persian Empire had all the interest to undertake that investment. Yes a huge investment but the pay-back would be 'huger' and would certainly not come by the fragmented Greek states but by the total geopolitical control of that part of Eurasia that "mattered". Guess why Carthagenians gathered a similarly large army of more than 300,000 soldiers to attack western Sicily. Does "monopoly" strikes any chord?
You compare apples with oranges.
Persians were not foreigners but "Middle-east kids". Herodotus describes nicely how Persians viewed themselves as the apex of humanity and then saw all others' hierarchical position in coincentric circles, i.e. their brothers Medians as second best, Lydians and Babylonians as 3rd best and so on - the more you moved out of the heart of the Empire the more you descended in the pyramid. In that way, not just Persians but the mass of the center had importance in the Empire. This builts a natural loyalty and this loyalty can do wonders when assembling large forces.
This was not the case for Greek monarchs who were foreigners and saw themselves as superior and their direct subjects as inferior as any barbarian on earth, preferring to recruit for the 100% of top (and even mid) jobs Greeks only. But they could not recruit more than 15-20,000 Greeks at one go, not only due to enormous costs but due to availability as these were mostly fellow Macedonians, Epirots and Aetolians and for navies Corinthians, Syracusians, Athenians and other mariners - certainly you could not find millions of them around in Greece and South Italy of Hellenistic Era where most citizens were by then not receiving military training!
If Greek monarchs wanted to gather a 200,000 army they would mathematically end up in a situation of 20,000 Greeks guiding 180,000 local "barbarians" and no matter the absence of training and proper armaments of the latter, the risk of dangerous rebellions would be enormous. Maintaining armies of a high-maximum 80,000 with 1 highly-trained progessionally armed Greek for every 3 to 4 lowly-trained half-armed local barbarians ensured overall security.
The fact that all hellenistic kingdoms faced the same challenges combined with the fact that anyway their needs were not enormous as they mostly fought among themselves border-line business-type wars revolving around sieges of cities and take-up of ports meant that small forces were more than enough for the job. A 30,000 army on campaign was already big for Hellenistic standards while for earlier Persian standards this would be a small regional expendition task-force.
Nikos
Quote:The notion that because the Persian Empire may have been populated by 50 million people it could assemble an army of 400-500,000 seems all pervasive.
Absolutely not. On the contrary, the notion that Persians could not assemble a half a million army by mobilising more than 1 million people just because they were "ancient" or... "Asian" is more than pervasive! Asian nations were the first to gather vast numbers!
During the previous century, Persians had already built on a pre-existing Median and Lydian Empires which in their turn had built over the Babylonian-Assyrian Empires. Each Empire succeded the other by overtaking leadership over long pre-existing governance structures and not by destroying these structures and then trying to re-invent the wheel. Persians were heirs of a long integration process in the Middle East and Eastern Minor Asia, thus every structure was in place, the cake was ready-made, Persians were adding only the cherry. For Persians, the Empire was all about a working low-level self-governance that ensured regional stability so as to enable a working inter-region infrastructure, well-guarded trade-routes, a seamless flow of trade, and thus a centralised tax-system, a post-office and other governmental structures, and of course the possibility to move big armies swiftly from the one edge of the Empire to the other. Certainly they would not do it every year or something but if Persian kings could not master assembling, feeding and leading 500,000 soldiers with the possibility to move them around and feed them, they had better go run a MacKebabs... not run an Empire!
- 500 BC Persians had everything in place to govern and move around 500,000 soldiers.
- 1800 AD French clearly had not, but they had their try and fared some kilometers.
Quote:It matters not how many one can assemble what matters is how one commands and controls such. It also very much matters how one supplies such.The answer to the latter seems to be that because the Empire was large it could provide a huge supply train. The argument is utterly circular and proves nothing.
But that is not an argument that they did not! Every single point out there points out that they had all the money, all the means, all the facilities and all the good reasons to gather a very big army for that campaign.
Quote:The sheer numbers of ships Herodotus proposes will have largely denuded the eastern Mediterranean of those who made it function economically: the sailors. The naval history in classical times shows that such crews aren't trained and supplied at the drop of a hat.
Yes, by all means. Such a campaign was not meant to last 50 or 80 years like a Roman campaign. It was supposed to be an one-off campaign that should deal with the "issue" swiftly and decisevely in the span of months. Of course for a short period it drained the Persian Empire and the Eastern Mediterranean world but then Phoenicians who were the chief-magnates of the Persian Empire had all the interest to undertake that investment. Yes a huge investment but the pay-back would be 'huger' and would certainly not come by the fragmented Greek states but by the total geopolitical control of that part of Eurasia that "mattered". Guess why Carthagenians gathered a similarly large army of more than 300,000 soldiers to attack western Sicily. Does "monopoly" strikes any chord?
Quote:Again, why is it that Antiochus III, the "Great King", thought he could defend his empire with 70,000 when a former Great King failed with 600,000 and 1,000,000?
You compare apples with oranges.
Persians were not foreigners but "Middle-east kids". Herodotus describes nicely how Persians viewed themselves as the apex of humanity and then saw all others' hierarchical position in coincentric circles, i.e. their brothers Medians as second best, Lydians and Babylonians as 3rd best and so on - the more you moved out of the heart of the Empire the more you descended in the pyramid. In that way, not just Persians but the mass of the center had importance in the Empire. This builts a natural loyalty and this loyalty can do wonders when assembling large forces.
This was not the case for Greek monarchs who were foreigners and saw themselves as superior and their direct subjects as inferior as any barbarian on earth, preferring to recruit for the 100% of top (and even mid) jobs Greeks only. But they could not recruit more than 15-20,000 Greeks at one go, not only due to enormous costs but due to availability as these were mostly fellow Macedonians, Epirots and Aetolians and for navies Corinthians, Syracusians, Athenians and other mariners - certainly you could not find millions of them around in Greece and South Italy of Hellenistic Era where most citizens were by then not receiving military training!
If Greek monarchs wanted to gather a 200,000 army they would mathematically end up in a situation of 20,000 Greeks guiding 180,000 local "barbarians" and no matter the absence of training and proper armaments of the latter, the risk of dangerous rebellions would be enormous. Maintaining armies of a high-maximum 80,000 with 1 highly-trained progessionally armed Greek for every 3 to 4 lowly-trained half-armed local barbarians ensured overall security.
The fact that all hellenistic kingdoms faced the same challenges combined with the fact that anyway their needs were not enormous as they mostly fought among themselves border-line business-type wars revolving around sieges of cities and take-up of ports meant that small forces were more than enough for the job. A 30,000 army on campaign was already big for Hellenistic standards while for earlier Persian standards this would be a small regional expendition task-force.
Nikos
