05-20-2005, 12:15 PM
1) as for the counting method decribed by Herodotus, just common sense again, isns that easier to deploy forces in regular lines and ranks, and count them, that build any fence? As a side note, in Medieval writers those tales are not unknown, like "They passed through a defile, and only 10 abreast can be pass" and so on. I think those are simply ways to say "look, I don´t have any documentary evidence, but i hear they did that" so the entire problem is, is Herodotus reliable? and would you trust him on this or your commomn sense instead?
2) Another matter is that we are looking to the entire thing from only one point of view, that of the Greeks. Historians usually write about masses of Ottoman Turks crushing small Christian armies just because they only take into account Christian sources. For instance, at the battle of Kerestes (1596) the Christians say they faced 150.000 Ottomans, an enormous force, but if you read Ottoman sources, they say the Christians were 300.000!! maybe If we had Persian registers we would learn thet Xerxes army was hopelessly outnumbered by huge Greek armies
3) As for Ancient writers being more reliable than Medieval writers, I think you can´t generalize, I wouldn´t trust Arrianus any more than Arnold of Lübeck. I think the more reliable are those who participated in the campaigns they are describing, but only for his own forces, I trust Ammianus when he says the Romans were 13.000 at Argentoratum, I don´t trust him when he says the Barbarians were 35.000.
4) I think it is possible the Persian received supplies by sea, forage and supply lines could be complementary. I think they could also had built depots previously to the campaign at points in the route of the army. I doubt they could move a field army of hundreds of thousands, however. It is just common sense, European powers in XVIII century could not supply an army larger than 120.000 in the Lower Countries, and the limit was much smaller in other less developed and well comunicated regions. If the Persians really could, so they achieved the military revolution 2.300 years before modern Europe, which sounds odd to me.
2) Another matter is that we are looking to the entire thing from only one point of view, that of the Greeks. Historians usually write about masses of Ottoman Turks crushing small Christian armies just because they only take into account Christian sources. For instance, at the battle of Kerestes (1596) the Christians say they faced 150.000 Ottomans, an enormous force, but if you read Ottoman sources, they say the Christians were 300.000!! maybe If we had Persian registers we would learn thet Xerxes army was hopelessly outnumbered by huge Greek armies
3) As for Ancient writers being more reliable than Medieval writers, I think you can´t generalize, I wouldn´t trust Arrianus any more than Arnold of Lübeck. I think the more reliable are those who participated in the campaigns they are describing, but only for his own forces, I trust Ammianus when he says the Romans were 13.000 at Argentoratum, I don´t trust him when he says the Barbarians were 35.000.
4) I think it is possible the Persian received supplies by sea, forage and supply lines could be complementary. I think they could also had built depots previously to the campaign at points in the route of the army. I doubt they could move a field army of hundreds of thousands, however. It is just common sense, European powers in XVIII century could not supply an army larger than 120.000 in the Lower Countries, and the limit was much smaller in other less developed and well comunicated regions. If the Persians really could, so they achieved the military revolution 2.300 years before modern Europe, which sounds odd to me.
AKA Inaki
