Ancient army numbers

[Hanny]

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?

Why?, because your comparing apples and fireplaces. Second, Persian economy was vastly higher than Punic wars and gallic invasion examples you used, income. 14,600 talents of silver in 480BC, so this is another fallacy.

Your method gets you into all sorts of problems.

Because 'citizen' can mean different things in different societies, and non-citizens fight in some societies.

In your late Roman example you posted the regular army but failed to include those who comprised the bulk of the manpower. http://usna.edu/Users/history/abels/hh38...taries.htm

These non citizens filled vital military roles.

Slaves are not non citizens, they are not part of the military manpower pool as they do not serve in the military.

In any event as i used this:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZS1OoQe_CgoC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=roman+population+in+212bc&source=bl&ots=KdcwSVHE1p&sig=tOUYq7hLC4-TXRAWvHNmYwZ8WBE&hl=en#v=onepage&q=roman%20population%20in%20212bc&f=false it shows that even using total population you get 7%+ values froma wide range of historical examples, not your 1-2% for Persia. You then post this book to support the oposite of its content after i used it to show what it does contain.

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].

Rome Punic wars citizens served for decades at a time, see Livy, and achived high MPR from 225BC onwards, inc later Republic 25 years service, in any way you do the math ypou dont get what you suggest. Persians did 10 years mil training, both have the opoiste of your suggestion.

Maths will not support your suggestion, you started with 225 and 212 BC, both showing the oposite, and any number ( Mil strength or avaiable for mil service) divided by a larger number ( total population) will produce a smaller number not a higher (Mil strength or avaiable for mil service divided by actual males of mil age is a smaller number) one for MPR, so no, this is flawed methodology at every level.

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."

You started with 225 and 212, both showing the oposite from your suggestion, as does carthages and Greek numbers, you then moved to 4th cent AD Notitia numbers, which again show the flaw in your method.

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.

You citied Brunt, whose work does not cover that time period. Your flawed methodolgy is the problem, Late Roman Empire had 50-60 million people only 10-20% were citizens liable for service in the Legions,

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

435,000/(10% of 40,000,000=4,000,000)= minimum MPR of 10.8% of citizens in mil serve, while being 1% of total population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Roman_army

I did not challange, i pointed out your unable to use maths, including basic addition, to support your suggestions, as all your examples show the oposite of your contention.

225 BC Latins in mil service 87500/273000=32%
212 BC Latins in mil service 80000/273000=29%, less Latins lost from 218 onwards would push it far beyond the 225 BC MPR, 137k Latin citizens in 209 would put it c45-50% for 212BC.

We are done.