05-24-2005, 06:21 PM
To: floofthegoof
In re the Second Punic War, it is worth noting that the Romans raised the army of Cannae in their home territory, and it stayed in their core territory. This is different from sending the same force on an expedition a thousand miles away, the last couple hundred into hostile territory. The Romans were also rather better organized than the Persian empire, which probably facilitated getting a large army assembled. On the issue of Hannibal, I didn't think his army had 60,000 men, particularly after fighting three major and hard-fought battles without reinforcements. Regardless of the exact number of Hannibal's army, his ability to stay in Italy is also a tremendous achievement by a phenomenal general - not a good measure of normal armies and leaders. If Hannibal's army was indeed 60,000, that is a lot less than has been mentioned on this thread - when Persian numbers have be estimated from 100,000 to 300,000 or more.
We have been using verified information to get some plausibe numbers. It isn't all in Herodotus, but the experiences of Napoleon, and the calculations of 19th and 20 th century quartermasters are very relevant and testable. Mass starvation is a predictable consequence of trying to march 300,000 men in one mass in pre-industrial conditions.
In re the Second Punic War, it is worth noting that the Romans raised the army of Cannae in their home territory, and it stayed in their core territory. This is different from sending the same force on an expedition a thousand miles away, the last couple hundred into hostile territory. The Romans were also rather better organized than the Persian empire, which probably facilitated getting a large army assembled. On the issue of Hannibal, I didn't think his army had 60,000 men, particularly after fighting three major and hard-fought battles without reinforcements. Regardless of the exact number of Hannibal's army, his ability to stay in Italy is also a tremendous achievement by a phenomenal general - not a good measure of normal armies and leaders. If Hannibal's army was indeed 60,000, that is a lot less than has been mentioned on this thread - when Persian numbers have be estimated from 100,000 to 300,000 or more.
We have been using verified information to get some plausibe numbers. It isn't all in Herodotus, but the experiences of Napoleon, and the calculations of 19th and 20 th century quartermasters are very relevant and testable. Mass starvation is a predictable consequence of trying to march 300,000 men in one mass in pre-industrial conditions.
Felix Wang
