02-21-2012, 08:10 PM
I am really pressing on the issue - and while it seemingly has fatigued a lot of people here and are passing to other greener fields - only to show the amount of 1) miscalculations 2) unjustified and totally unfounded disrespect for the accounts ancient writers 3) ignorance on the capacities of ancient armies 4) racial prejudice (yes, by all means) - i.e. 19th-20th century European historians accepting nonchalantly the feasibility of the Grand Armee supported by carriages, not ships in a harsh cold environment, and rejecting without any base the feasibility of the huge Persian army moving supported by ships. All that just because Persians were an ancient Asian kingdom - because apparently there is no other argument.
There is not a single argument of those who insist on the "low-numbers theory" to support their insistence. All we hear is the same "they could not had done it" - and it is the same them that accept that Napoleon did what he did in Russia, totally contradicting themselves and showing the total poverty of their argumentation and capacity of thinking, let alone paying respect to the historical account.
Speaking on numbers, what we should view first is what 5th century sources have written on the field. All the rest is really of lesser importance if not nonsensical. These are primarily Herodotus, Simonides and Ctesias. We can argue that Simonides was a poet, he may have thrown a number he heard somewhere for impressions. So let us comment mostly on Simonides and Ctesias who both spoke on details and the latter even claimed to have access to Persian material while the former had lots of material from the Greek sources (then being an Ionian he could have also info from the other side - let us not forget that in antiquity Herodotus was seen as too barbarophile which implies he also read some foreign sources too).
1. Herodotus makes reference to 2,5 million and includes an exhaustive list of land troops and navies from the vast array of ethnic groups, vassals and allies, that were grouped by the Persians. Then he doubles the number to include the logistics which is a rational guess.
2. Ctesias some decades later mentions particularly the gathering at Doriskos at about 800,000 men.
Remark: No matter who writer is the father of lies more than the other, the 2 accounts are NOT contradicting themselves: Herodotus speaks of the overall mobilisation. Ctesias speaks only of 1 major gathering in which we can understand very well that there would not be but only a part of the overall Persian mobilisation. From there on, Ctesias account - if it ever included only land-based troops could be the rough equivalent of an army of 300 to 400,000 men of fighting-only duties supported by another 400-500,000 men. The rest - as per Herodotus descriptions could have been assigned to any other type of activities in the greater region given that strategic Thrace was under freshly-achieved control.
Herodotus speaks of roughly 2,5 million army doubled by support. Too big? Could he ever make an error? Yes. OK, what could be the most common error?
Suggestions:
1st suggestion: Mistranslate the overall mobilisation for fighting force (i.e. he mistakenly took the numbers of each sub-army as total fighting force while it could be total fighting-plus-some-logistics force) and then going on to calculate the double to include logistics. Herodotus was certainly not there to count who was carrying weapons and who not, he just consulted plain numerical accounts and then added his logistics calculations.
2nd suggestion: Herodotus and other Greeks did a mistake on translation of Persian terms for 1000 and 10,000. So he could had indeed 10folded the total numbers. Possible? Yes possible. But not as possible as 1 since in that way he would had very probably inflated totally the numbers of insignificant tribes too, however the relative numbers (in between the ethnic groups) make sense.
3rd suggestion: (as suggested by so many recent historians - and I take their average): He lied himself or most probably he listened to over-exagerrations from the victorius Greek side or the over-propagandisation of the Persians prior to the campaign: the Persian army should had been much less than an overall 600,000 men land and ships and this gives about 200,000 of land-based fighting force.
1st hypothesis? I find it probable. Herodotus wrote years after the events so such errors could had been propagated by his time. In any case it would be difficult for Greeks to know the real distinction of combattants vs. non combattants among Persians and they could as well rank them all as army. THen Herodotus could grab that and make his doubling mistake. Possible.
2nd hypothesis? Probable but much less. An irrelevant south Italian Dorian Greek maybe but an Ionian Greek would not make such a basic mistake, particularly Herodotus who consulted various sources and not all Greek ones.
3rd hypothesis? Highly improbable. Certainly not for the region of 1/10. 1/2, 1/3 yes but not 1/10. Not even the hugest boasters ever claimed such and frankly Herodotus who tried to keep a less hellenocentric stance would no t abide by a suspicious 1/10 inflation. I thus find this hypothesis as totally unfounded as it is based on no contemporary element, no archaeological finding, i.e. nothing at all.
When you have people accepting the fact that Napoleon - no matter the difficulties - could move an army of more than half a million mostly combattants only on land, in cold Russia, it is unacceptable to dismiss a similar and even bigger army of combattants organised by Persians and supporting it with a massive force of logistics behind as all ancient sources imply. One must have a lot of 1) imagination 2) historic-bigotry to suggest that the one could and the other could not when ALL elements point out that the other could much more easily achieve that kind of mobilisation.
Personally I do accept that there has to be an amount of miscalculation and natural over-exagerration fulled by both pre-war Persian propaganda and post-war Greek pride but I cannot accept without any basis anything lower than a minimum of 300,000 land troops supported by 2 to 3 times their numbers in ships-logistics ending up in an overall considerably more-than-a-million mobilisation. Given their target, their enemies, the landscape and past history, and the set timetable, Persians were imposed to bring not any lower that that. Based on their Empires' wealth, ressources and organisation, and again on proximity, sea-access and logistics, they could amass that number much more easily that what Napoleon had tried to do in Russia. And I cannot accept just like that, that Napoleon had to present anything far superior to ancient Persians in terms of organisation. The ball was, is and still remains to the other side thus.
Nikos
There is not a single argument of those who insist on the "low-numbers theory" to support their insistence. All we hear is the same "they could not had done it" - and it is the same them that accept that Napoleon did what he did in Russia, totally contradicting themselves and showing the total poverty of their argumentation and capacity of thinking, let alone paying respect to the historical account.
Speaking on numbers, what we should view first is what 5th century sources have written on the field. All the rest is really of lesser importance if not nonsensical. These are primarily Herodotus, Simonides and Ctesias. We can argue that Simonides was a poet, he may have thrown a number he heard somewhere for impressions. So let us comment mostly on Simonides and Ctesias who both spoke on details and the latter even claimed to have access to Persian material while the former had lots of material from the Greek sources (then being an Ionian he could have also info from the other side - let us not forget that in antiquity Herodotus was seen as too barbarophile which implies he also read some foreign sources too).
1. Herodotus makes reference to 2,5 million and includes an exhaustive list of land troops and navies from the vast array of ethnic groups, vassals and allies, that were grouped by the Persians. Then he doubles the number to include the logistics which is a rational guess.
2. Ctesias some decades later mentions particularly the gathering at Doriskos at about 800,000 men.
Remark: No matter who writer is the father of lies more than the other, the 2 accounts are NOT contradicting themselves: Herodotus speaks of the overall mobilisation. Ctesias speaks only of 1 major gathering in which we can understand very well that there would not be but only a part of the overall Persian mobilisation. From there on, Ctesias account - if it ever included only land-based troops could be the rough equivalent of an army of 300 to 400,000 men of fighting-only duties supported by another 400-500,000 men. The rest - as per Herodotus descriptions could have been assigned to any other type of activities in the greater region given that strategic Thrace was under freshly-achieved control.
Herodotus speaks of roughly 2,5 million army doubled by support. Too big? Could he ever make an error? Yes. OK, what could be the most common error?
Suggestions:
1st suggestion: Mistranslate the overall mobilisation for fighting force (i.e. he mistakenly took the numbers of each sub-army as total fighting force while it could be total fighting-plus-some-logistics force) and then going on to calculate the double to include logistics. Herodotus was certainly not there to count who was carrying weapons and who not, he just consulted plain numerical accounts and then added his logistics calculations.
2nd suggestion: Herodotus and other Greeks did a mistake on translation of Persian terms for 1000 and 10,000. So he could had indeed 10folded the total numbers. Possible? Yes possible. But not as possible as 1 since in that way he would had very probably inflated totally the numbers of insignificant tribes too, however the relative numbers (in between the ethnic groups) make sense.
3rd suggestion: (as suggested by so many recent historians - and I take their average): He lied himself or most probably he listened to over-exagerrations from the victorius Greek side or the over-propagandisation of the Persians prior to the campaign: the Persian army should had been much less than an overall 600,000 men land and ships and this gives about 200,000 of land-based fighting force.
1st hypothesis? I find it probable. Herodotus wrote years after the events so such errors could had been propagated by his time. In any case it would be difficult for Greeks to know the real distinction of combattants vs. non combattants among Persians and they could as well rank them all as army. THen Herodotus could grab that and make his doubling mistake. Possible.
2nd hypothesis? Probable but much less. An irrelevant south Italian Dorian Greek maybe but an Ionian Greek would not make such a basic mistake, particularly Herodotus who consulted various sources and not all Greek ones.
3rd hypothesis? Highly improbable. Certainly not for the region of 1/10. 1/2, 1/3 yes but not 1/10. Not even the hugest boasters ever claimed such and frankly Herodotus who tried to keep a less hellenocentric stance would no t abide by a suspicious 1/10 inflation. I thus find this hypothesis as totally unfounded as it is based on no contemporary element, no archaeological finding, i.e. nothing at all.
When you have people accepting the fact that Napoleon - no matter the difficulties - could move an army of more than half a million mostly combattants only on land, in cold Russia, it is unacceptable to dismiss a similar and even bigger army of combattants organised by Persians and supporting it with a massive force of logistics behind as all ancient sources imply. One must have a lot of 1) imagination 2) historic-bigotry to suggest that the one could and the other could not when ALL elements point out that the other could much more easily achieve that kind of mobilisation.
Personally I do accept that there has to be an amount of miscalculation and natural over-exagerration fulled by both pre-war Persian propaganda and post-war Greek pride but I cannot accept without any basis anything lower than a minimum of 300,000 land troops supported by 2 to 3 times their numbers in ships-logistics ending up in an overall considerably more-than-a-million mobilisation. Given their target, their enemies, the landscape and past history, and the set timetable, Persians were imposed to bring not any lower that that. Based on their Empires' wealth, ressources and organisation, and again on proximity, sea-access and logistics, they could amass that number much more easily that what Napoleon had tried to do in Russia. And I cannot accept just like that, that Napoleon had to present anything far superior to ancient Persians in terms of organisation. The ball was, is and still remains to the other side thus.
Nikos
