Confused about the numbers

[luisfc1972]

I am no historian and far from it, just an ancient military history buff (Europe though), especially Greece. For some reason the Romans dont do it for me, i really dont know why. I guess i feel like Steven Pressfield does. Anyway, I love Alexanders story and i know enough about the famous generals of antiquity (Hannibal, Khan, Scipio, Ceasar, Phyrus, Epinamondas etc. etc.) to regard Alexander as my favorite commander of all time. Alexander was outnumbered at times 5 or 6 to 1 more or less. Facing hundreds of thousands of Persian soldiers. Then I start reading about Crassus and his venture into Parthia a few centuries after Alexanders death. One would think that there would be more people, larger armies, bigger population on the continents 3 centuries after Alexanders day. Crassus' army of 40 thousand soldiers get taken out by 10 thousand parthian horsemen. This is where my confusion begins. It seems absurd to me that centuries after Alexanders time the parthians (Persians) can muster an army of only 10 thousand horsemen? What happened to the overwhelming numbers of middle east soldiers? confusingI posted this on another thread and this is one of the responses i got, which makes sense to me."There are a couple of reasons why the partian army was smaller than the persian armies. 1. The society of the Parthian was a rural society and the Persian a well centralized empire. Because Persia was well organized it could easily bring a large number of men into arms. 2. The Persians used there wealth to hire thousands of Greek mercenarie hoplites. 3. The bulk of the parthian army was cavalary, to train and feed one horse will take a lot of energy and money. Thats why the armie couldnt consist of 40.000 horses, there were not enough resources."this makes sense to me. there was no persian empire by the time of crassus, at least not the massive one alexander faced. so i guess parthia was smaller than the one in alexanders day.any thoughts?

[nick]

Hi Luis -I don't know much about Parthian armies, so I'll stick to the Persian one."1. The society of the Parthian was a rural society and the Persian a well centralized empire. Because Persia was well organized it could easily bring a large number of men into arms."That is partly true, but one can not hold the view that Persia was "a well centralized empire". I mean: there were four capitals and the court migrated on a yearly basis. The local satraps ruled as local hegemons. It is more proper to view Persia as a federation of peoples living "under the sway" of the great kings, rather than a centralized nation state. Though the empire had a solid organisation in its own style, this factor can not account for the difference between Parthian and Persian armies."2. The Persians used there wealth to hire thousands of Greek mercenarie hoplites."Yes, and many levies from the satrapies and vassal states too. Persia in its prime was probably twice the size of Parthia (which didn't include Asia Minor, Egypt and the Levant) and probably more than twice the size in terms of inhabitants."3. The bulk of the parthian army was cavalary, to train and feed one horse will take a lot of energy and money."But the same would be true for the Persian army. Numbers in our sources (and popular literature) are exaggarated. The Persians were probably outnumbered at Granicus. They had numerical superiority at Issus and Gaugamela, but not 5 or 6 times Alexander's army. Because armies that size just can not exist. The highest army strength in Antiquity that is believed to be 'confirmed' is 88,000. Even is Persia exceeded that number, anything far above 100,000 is not credible. Some scholars, i.e. Delbruck, even claim that Persia had inferior numbers at Issus and superior numbers at Gaugamela only in cavalry.Please read the next post.

[nick]

The difference between Parthian and Persian armies must be explained as follows.The Persian army was not primarily aimed at delivering battle. It also had a symbolic meaning: including levies from all satrapies stressed the unity of the empire, the obedience of all peoples to the great king. Above that, the history of Persian warfare shows that the size of the army was also seen as a tool to impress the enemy (prior to the battle) and so even as a means to avoid armed conflict at all.Ancient commanders knew that size didn't win you a victory. Ancient commanders tended to keep their armies as small as possible, but as effective as possible. To score a victory, a smaller, flexible, fast, high morale quality army was much preferred above a mass of untrained pawns. Alexander's victories prove that. The Parthian victories (like Carrhae) show that the Parthians employed such a smaller, effective force aimed at armed conflict. They did not share the 'symbolic view' on warfare with their Persian predecessors.The difference in army size between Persian and Parthian armies should be accounted for by pointing to the huge difference in the nature of their armies and the different views and concepts about what war was all about.Regards ---Nick

[luisfc1972]

well if the part about numbers being exaggerated. that must include 480b.c. as well?

[nick]

Yes, I thought it was Delbruck who has shown that, if indeed Xerxes' army was as large as e.g. Herodotus claims, and if we assume that the Persian army moved in approximately the same marching order as the German infantry in WW I, then the first ranks of the Persian army must have been arriving in Greece while the rear of the column would still be in Babylon.Now picture that!Regards -Nick

[marcus]

No *that's* an impressive vision! Thanks for that, I shall carry it with me all day.All th ebestMArcus