03-01-2012, 04:34 PM
I do agree with what you write Tom. And this is precisely the reason I have been repeatedly referring to "magnitude of volumes", not to "precise numbers". I would never present any strong objection to anyone wishing to reduce by 1/2 or 1/3 the overall huge numbers Herodotus mentions for Persian campaign because at such high numbers none can be sure. I did this myself above and also presented the full case explaining why.
However when someone goes on to cut the referenced numbers to to 1/10 and sometimes even more, then I do seriously object. And I do object because precisely there is absolutely no single valid reason to do such a thing. Financial and logistics feasibility, underlying political and financial reasoning, strategic and tactical reasons - these are all there to explain the magnitude of numbers Herodotus mentions (precise numbers not maybe but magnitude yes).
You have also to keep in mind that contrary to what some modern writers say, numbers mentioned DO make sense when viewed in their proper context (fighting force, garissons and rear-guard, navies, logistics). You cannot reduce the numbers of one war/battle and accept the numbers on another - and this is done for the same source by some modern writers. Totally arbitrary. Herodotus mentions 10,000 Athenians and 1000 Plateans in Marathon? Heroic deflation? How about Platea then where he mentions about 110,000 Greeks? What about Imera that is mentioned to had seen the largest ancient Greek army ever at around 120,000 Greeks? Heroic deflations too? I could accept a reduction from 110,000 to an absolute min of 80,000 but I could never get a reduction from 110,000 to 40,000. This does not make sense. 40,000 is just the people gathered in a modern stadium, easily packed, easily ordered, easily measured - back then people were much more used than us to measure the gatherings of people, particularly armies. Scouts were much more knowledgeable than modern police forces in counting concentrations of people. Guess now how able would be Greek officers of the allied states each measuring up his own forces and those of his alleis. There could be an error but that would not be greater than 5-10% at worst. Herodotus did not use 1 source for his text, he claims to have talked to many people and numbers is something that indeed you ask more than 1 person to tell you.
We have also to understand that for Greeks back then it was of absolutely high-most necessity to know how many opponents they faced in a battle and how many soldiers themselves used. Before the battle certainly, but really also after the battle, so as to be able to do a correct de-briefing so as to measure what they needed to field in future when facing the same opponent. And that de-briefing worked. We see it in Xenophon's epic march in Mesopotamia, we see it 150 years later when Alexander was setting to Asia with an incredibly small army for the task. He was not crazy, he already had compared his forces with the southern ones that had compared theirs with the asian ones (both of whom had not changed radically in that lapse of 15 decades), he had done his research. He knew what to face and he knew what was the balance of power on the battlefield. Had all the referenced numbers on Persian-Carthagenian wars been a bunch of lies, all chances are that Xenophon would had never seen the sea again, Alexander would had fared as far as Byzantion.
There is a constant context, a repetition of patterns, references by so many sources and one has to go on and discredit really the whole bunch of them to explain cutting allied Greek numbers from 100,000 to 40,000 and Persian overall campaign numbers from 2 million to 200,000. I do support critical viewing of numbers, I do support wholeheartedly research but I do support it only when this is done in a proficient manner. Not in the arbitrary unscientific and downright derogatory manner of "I do not like those numbers, I chop them as per my own preferences". I have done that analysis above and notice that the absence of comments (apart side-questions) on my main points is self-evident.
Nikos
However when someone goes on to cut the referenced numbers to to 1/10 and sometimes even more, then I do seriously object. And I do object because precisely there is absolutely no single valid reason to do such a thing. Financial and logistics feasibility, underlying political and financial reasoning, strategic and tactical reasons - these are all there to explain the magnitude of numbers Herodotus mentions (precise numbers not maybe but magnitude yes).
You have also to keep in mind that contrary to what some modern writers say, numbers mentioned DO make sense when viewed in their proper context (fighting force, garissons and rear-guard, navies, logistics). You cannot reduce the numbers of one war/battle and accept the numbers on another - and this is done for the same source by some modern writers. Totally arbitrary. Herodotus mentions 10,000 Athenians and 1000 Plateans in Marathon? Heroic deflation? How about Platea then where he mentions about 110,000 Greeks? What about Imera that is mentioned to had seen the largest ancient Greek army ever at around 120,000 Greeks? Heroic deflations too? I could accept a reduction from 110,000 to an absolute min of 80,000 but I could never get a reduction from 110,000 to 40,000. This does not make sense. 40,000 is just the people gathered in a modern stadium, easily packed, easily ordered, easily measured - back then people were much more used than us to measure the gatherings of people, particularly armies. Scouts were much more knowledgeable than modern police forces in counting concentrations of people. Guess now how able would be Greek officers of the allied states each measuring up his own forces and those of his alleis. There could be an error but that would not be greater than 5-10% at worst. Herodotus did not use 1 source for his text, he claims to have talked to many people and numbers is something that indeed you ask more than 1 person to tell you.
We have also to understand that for Greeks back then it was of absolutely high-most necessity to know how many opponents they faced in a battle and how many soldiers themselves used. Before the battle certainly, but really also after the battle, so as to be able to do a correct de-briefing so as to measure what they needed to field in future when facing the same opponent. And that de-briefing worked. We see it in Xenophon's epic march in Mesopotamia, we see it 150 years later when Alexander was setting to Asia with an incredibly small army for the task. He was not crazy, he already had compared his forces with the southern ones that had compared theirs with the asian ones (both of whom had not changed radically in that lapse of 15 decades), he had done his research. He knew what to face and he knew what was the balance of power on the battlefield. Had all the referenced numbers on Persian-Carthagenian wars been a bunch of lies, all chances are that Xenophon would had never seen the sea again, Alexander would had fared as far as Byzantion.
There is a constant context, a repetition of patterns, references by so many sources and one has to go on and discredit really the whole bunch of them to explain cutting allied Greek numbers from 100,000 to 40,000 and Persian overall campaign numbers from 2 million to 200,000. I do support critical viewing of numbers, I do support wholeheartedly research but I do support it only when this is done in a proficient manner. Not in the arbitrary unscientific and downright derogatory manner of "I do not like those numbers, I chop them as per my own preferences". I have done that analysis above and notice that the absence of comments (apart side-questions) on my main points is self-evident.
Nikos
