The Number Problem in the Persian Wars 480-479 BCE

[Steven James]

The paper "The Size of the Army of Xerxes is attached here:

Nope, the button Insert into doesn't come up. Don't have much patience for how attachments work on this forum. Not logical. There is also another paper "Cyrus as a witness regarding the size of the army of Xerxes."

Pm if anyone wants a copy as this attachment thingy is giving me grief.

[Crispianus]

also assuming that the river flow is remained the same (which I really doubt), is totally based on inductive reasoning. I see this so I think...
I see this water so this is what they had...

Obviously studying the ground 2000+ years later has some limitations, as you say things may well have changed landslips and shifts in the earths crust as well the flora and ambient temperature (industrial climate change as well as natural) can effect the water supply, for that you would need a study though.

I think Maurice is trying to rationalise the numbers from a 1920's military perspective but does take some account of silting of river estuary's at  least as far as the water supply and route is concerned.

What I found most interesting was the way he organised the movement of an army of 210,000 individuals and 75,000 animals, including 15,000 camels carrying more or less half a million gallons of water.

---

The paper "The Size of the Army of Xerxes is attached here:

Nope, the button Insert into doesn't come up. Don't have much patience for how attachments work on this forum. Not logical. There is also another paper "Cyrus as a witness regarding the size of the army of Xerxes."

Pm if anyone wants a copy as this attachment thingy is giving me grief.

No problem here?

Do you mean this article: "Cyrus the Younger and the Size of Xerxes' Army"

[Sean Manning]

If you read German, I have a link to Fischer's article on my blog too.

Also, on the battle of Arausio I assume that Marco is talking about Plutarch's Life of Marius and some numbers in the summaries (Periochae) of books of Livy which no longer survive. Lets look at those sources:

What these reports said about the numbers and strength of the invading hosts was disbelieved at first, but afterwards it was found to be short of the truth. For three hundred thousand armed fighting men were advancing, and much larger hordes of women and children were said to accompany them ... Their numbers, however, are given by many writers as not less, but more, than the figure mentioned above. Moreover, their courage and daring made them irresistible, and when they engaged in battle they came on with the swiftness and force of fire, so that no one could withstand their onset ... Their numbers were limitless, they were hideous in their aspect, and their speech and cries were unlike those of other peoples. They covered a large part of the plain, and after pitching their camp challenged Marius to battle. ... These had been joined by all the Ambrones who survived the battle, and there was lamentation among them all night long, not like the wailings and groanings of men, but howlings and bellowings with a strain of the wild beast in them, mingled with threats and cries of grief, went up from this vast multitude and echoed among the surrounding hills and over the river valley ..."

- The Ur III kings on Gutium, I mean Chinese on the Xiongnu, I mean settlers on the Iroquois, I mean Republican French on Italian rebels, I mean Plutarch, Life of Marius, on the Cimbri (and I am not kidding: you find all of these tropes deployed again and again as the leaders of states explain why they had to do horrible things to people who refuse to let the state control them)

Valerius Antias' 80,000 + 40,000 Romans dead at Arausio (= 120,000, one of those special numbers! Livy, Periochae 67.2) and Plutarch's 300,000 Cimbri and Teuton warriors (another of those special numbers! Plutarch, Marius 11.2, Herodotus 7.165, 7.185) fail all my criteria: they are round numbers, of barbarians, from someone well afterwards who other ancient writers accuse of giving exaggerated numbers. Even Livy noticed that Valerius Antias gave higher numbers for the same battle than contemporary writers did.

Caesar sure does list around 250,000 Gauls who attacked him at Alesia, but most people I know are very suspicious of the numbers in Caesar. He is a war criminal trying to persuade other Romans that he is to awesome to prosecute, not a neutral third party.

[CaesarAugustus]

If you read German, I have a link to Fischer's article on my blog too.

Also, on the battle of Arausio I assume that Marco is talking about Plutarch's Life of Marius and some numbers in the summaries (Periochae) of books of Livy which no longer survive.  Lets look at those sources:

What these reports said about the numbers and strength of the invading hosts was disbelieved at first, but afterwards it was found to be short of the truth. For three hundred thousand armed fighting men were advancing, and much larger hordes of women and children were said to accompany them ... Their numbers, however, are given by many writers as not less, but more, than the figure mentioned above. Moreover, their courage and daring made them irresistible, and when they engaged in battle they came on with the swiftness and force of fire, so that no one could withstand their onset ... Their numbers were limitless, they were hideous in their aspect, and their speech and cries were unlike those of other peoples. They covered a large part of the plain, and after pitching their camp challenged Marius to battle. ... These had been joined by all the Ambrones who survived the battle, and there was lamentation among them all night long, not like the wailings and groanings of men, but howlings and bellowings with a strain of the wild beast in them, mingled with threats and cries of grief, went up from this vast multitude and echoed among the surrounding hills and over the river valley ..."

- The Ur III kings on Gutium, I mean Chinese on the Xiongnu, I mean settlers on the Iroquois, I mean Republican French on Italian rebels, I mean Plutarch, Life of Marius, on the Cimbri (and I am not kidding: you find all of these tropes deployed again and again as the leaders of states explain why they had to do horrible things to people who refuse to let the state control them)

  Valerius Antias' 80,000 + 40,000 Romans dead at Arausio (= 120,000, one of those special numbers!  Livy, Periochae 67.2) and Plutarch's 300,000 Cimbri and Teuton warriors (another of those special numbers!  Plutarch, Marius 11.2, Herodotus 7.165, 7.185) fail all my criteria: they are round numbers, of barbarians, from someone well afterwards who other ancient writers accuse of giving exaggerated numbers.  Even Livy noticed that Valerius Antias gave higher numbers for the same battle than contemporary writers did.

  Caesar sure does list around 250,000 Gauls who attacked him at Alesia, but most people I know are very suspicious of the numbers in Caesar.  He is a war criminal trying to persuade other Romans that he is to awesome to prosecute, not a neutral third party.

You will never find a neutral third party. Apart this, you have the sources. Now, if you dislike them and prefer to give random numbers, it is your problem.

Your same sources include the key to read the number that we are providing (for the roman, there is also the roman logistic that preferred round numbers, Roth source). But, apart this, your 40000, apart from being also them a round number, is totally taken from the hat.

It is not taking into account available sources (e.g. a simple evaluation according to the naval forces), and is not taking into account the scenario, with the persian planning and campaign organization, neither the greek forces and reactions. So, it is just giving a number taken from the hat.


PS Just to close the topic, and just to provide the final evidence, we can see what Roth writes about supply depots, supply line and Achaemenid Empire:
Operational bases differ from supply depots, dumps or étapes; at the operational base provisions and other equipment are gathered, often from different sources, stockpiled and accounted for, and then sent onward to the army. Depots or étapes, in contrast, are used as intermediary bases, connecting the strategic with the operational and the tactical base. Armies with very primitive logistics might collect supplies in a single spot, but the use of a chain of depots forming a supply line indicates a sophisticated logistical system. The Achaemenid Persian military used supply depots, for example, but the less developed classical Greek armies seldom did.
(Roth, The logistic of the Roman Army at war)

So, a supply chain for the Persian Army is something that we know exists. Apart all the coherence and consistency of the number in the given scenario, we can see that also the last point definitely falls. Persian army consistently with the sources (and with the simple logic)
- did not rely entirely on foragging (no well organized army would plan something similar)
- could rely on a sophisticated logistical system, even better than the Greek one (and this is also normal, persina empire was huge)