The Number Problem in the Persian Wars 480-479 BCE

[Nathan Ross]

Mark Anthony, according to Plutarch, Anthony's Life - 37, deployed more than 110.000 soldiers.

Aha, so he did. Although Plutarch says that 60,000 were Roman soldiers and most of the rest local allies, who would be operating on their own home ground, pretty much. Still, an impressive army - whether we believe it or not is another question!

Just counting numbers of people over a few tens of thousands is very difficult, as we find with conflicting estimates of crowd sizes today. Most military sources are probably multiplying numbers of units based on a 'paper' unit strength; Antony had at least 10 ten legions in Parthia, as he marched this many out of Phraaspa. So was this his whole strength? And has Plutarch just calculated 10x6000(or 15x4000)=60K ?

That we should be dubious is true, but we have to be dubious of everything and not just about upper numbers.

Yes indeed. Although some sources are more reliable than others. I would far rather believe Ammianus that 6000 barbarians were killed at Strasbourg, rather than Zosimus, who claims it was 60,000! But, again - who's counting? Quoting gigantic army sizes and vast numbers of dead makes military narrative more epic and exciting, which is why historians are always exaggerating them...

Some people throw around big figures for the Marcomanni Wars or the Dacian Wars, but they seem to be based on studying diplomae and multiplying every unit which may have been involved at some point by its paper strength ...

They certainly do, and we've discussed these claims several times. Often the estimates seem to rely on one person quoting another person, often imperfectly, with the estimates scaling bigger with every misquote. The internet also, of course, acts as a gigantic amplification device for unlikely historical claims.