Army numbers,demographics,populations

[Efstathios]

We are not talking about millions here.Most researchers even greek ones estimate the number within 400-600.000 when Xerxes invaded Greece and 300-500.000 at gaugamela.

But not 100.000 and 200.000.Way too low for a King that if he would lose the battle he would lose the empire.We know that the persian empire could sustain even larger numbers than 400.000.The question is how he fed these 400.000.But because we dont know that doesnt mean he didnt do it.

And people that follow the same routes to see if they could sustain such an army cant prove really anything because the landscape was not the same 2500 years ago.There were lions at Macedonia.And furthermore they didnt rely only in the places they went to.They had supplies from Asia too.

[Paralus]

Most researchers even greek ones estimate the number within 400-600.000 when Xerxes invaded Greece and 300-500.000 at gaugamela.

But not 100.000 and 200.000.Way too low for a King that if he would lose the battle he would lose the empire.We know that the persian empire could sustain even larger numbers than 400.000.The question is how he fed these 400.000.But because we dont know that doesnt mean he didnt do it.

Yo Efstathios!

Ok, let's forgo the Xerxes invasion, I'll stick with my 200-250,000 and leave it there. As to Gaugamela, well, "most" historians I've read put that figure at somewhere between 120-240,000. I will maintain untill death that there is no way anything like 500,000 Persians were engaged in that battle. As a matter of pure numbers and physics, it wouldn't matter were Alexander Harry Potter, a number of that magnitude would simply have overwhelmed his 47,000 GÇô Macedonian supermen or not. It is tantamount to 300-500,000 old US Sherman tanks taking on 47,000 panzer and tiger tanks at the battle of the bulge GÇô the numbers would dominate regardless of the difference in the machines.

Before leaving this topic though, a couple of unanswered questions:

The sources report 110-120.000 total number of Alexander's troops by the time of the campaign in India.Most of them where persians,bactrians e.t.c.

Where do the sources put these troops at the major engagement of the campaign, Jhelum?

Athens had around 700.000 including the slaves and metoikoi.Athens could gather up a force of 60-80.000 hoplites.When they invaded Sicily they send 40.000

What is the basis for these figures? I can't rationalise Athens sending 40,000 citizens to Syracuse.

[kennyxx]

Paralus Hail

I know your quite right with 500.000 too much for Alexanders 47000. It really isnt too extraordinary.

I recall Boudica with around 100 000. Under her command been totally Anhialated by roughly 20 000 Romans. And those British soldiers around 200 Max holding 4000 Zulus at Roarks Drift. I realise yoiu say things are impossible but nothing is impossible in the Thatre of war.

Kenny

[Paralus]

I recall Boudica with around 100 000. Under her command been totally Anhialated by roughly 20 000 Romans. And those British soldiers around 200 Max holding 4000 Zulus at Roarks Drift. I realise yoiu say things are impossible but nothing is impossible in the Thatre of war.

Oh dear Kenny.

I've seen estimates of 200,00+ for the famous Queen Bitch. We really are entering the theatre of the absurd now, where numbers really don't matter. So what, 100,000+ manure collectors, sheep shunters and mud compactors - led by an extremely angry bint - were taught a lesson by experienced and well drilled legionaries is surprising? Get over it. The "Brit" lost.

As to Rorke's Drift, well, comparing warriors bearing hide shields to poms bearing carbines is fraught with problems. Using that as a yardstick for Gaugamela is more rediculous than Efstathios' numbers. But, if you must have it, then yes, why not.

Now, what of the previous day hmm? You know, that small skirmish that history knows as Isandlwana?

I believe I shall rest my case.

[marcus]

I recall Boudica with around 100 000. Under her command been totally Anhialated by roughly 20 000 Romans. And those British soldiers around 200 Max holding 4000 Zulus at Roarks Drift. I realise yoiu say things are impossible but nothing is impossible in the Thatre of war.

Hi Kenny,

It's all right, I'm not going to argue about the numbers, but a couple of points are worth considering.

First, Boudicca. Leaving aside Paralus' comments about her army, they were also funnelled into a fairly narrow area, where relatively few could present a front at a time. The Romans, who were better armoured and armed, didn't have to worry about being overwhelmed by a flank attack, and only ever had to cut down roughly the same number that they had in their own front line. If you recall, this was how Alexander negated the superior Persian numbers at Issus.

Second, Rourke's Drift - the British soldiers were in a fortified position (albeit not that well fortified, and overrun in places), and they also had much higher velocity projectile weapons than (most of) the Zulus. Considering the usual ratio bandied about siege warfare is that a position can be defended against attackers at least 10 times the number of defenders ... and then considering the British ability to knock out the enemy before they came close ... the disparity in numbers becomes less of an issue. That is in no way to deny the amazing achievement at Rourke's Drift - but had the British not had a defensible position, and had they not had easy access to cartridges, then it would have been a re-run of Isandhlwana.

Cheers

[kennyxx]

paralus.You seem to be getting over excited. Just making a point about small numbers holding against vaste numbers.

Regardless of era. Weapons etc its all about discipline holding the line and fighting. To reflect on Isandwana a great example of stuffed shirt incompetence. Lord Chelmsford one of Queen Vics chums. That battle has been reenacted and analised by military experts and still no conclusions can be made as to why the British lost. Regardless of howmany Zulus with spears. Volley after cohetant volley should have stopped them.

Going back to the logistics of the Persian Army been unsustainable. How on earth did Alexander sustain a land army of 40 000 plus in a hostile country where Darius had all the cash. It was said Alexander at the time of invasion was basically skint. So if Alexander could and did sustain his end. Then I am sure Darius could also irespective of the size of his force.

regards

Kenny

[marcus]

Regardless of era. Weapons etc its all about discipline holding the line and fighting. To reflect on Isandwana a great example of stuffed shirt incompetence. Lord Chelmsford one of Queen Vics chums. That battle has been reenacted and analised by military experts and still no conclusions can be made as to why the British lost. Regardless of howmany Zulus with spears. Volley after cohetant volley should have stopped them.

Hi Kenny,

I hope you don't think we're ganging up on you - that's not the intention! However ... the biggest problem at Isaldhwana was the fact that the ammunition boxes were screwed tightly shut, and they couldn't open them - volley after volley wasn't possible, because they didn't have the ammunition (or, rather, they had it but couldn't get to it).

Going back to the logistics of the Persian Army been unsustainable. How on earth did Alexander sustain a land army of 40 000 plus in a hostile country where Darius had all the cash. It was said Alexander at the time of invasion was basically skint. So if Alexander could and did sustain his end. Then I am sure Darius could also irespective of the size of his force.

You're right, of course, that Alexander was perilously short of money when he crossed the Hellespont. However, right after the Granicus Parmenion captured Zeleia, which was the centre of Persian adminsitration in Hellespontine Phrygia - including the treasury - and not long afterwards he entered Sardis, where the treasury was handed over to him. After that he had the necessary money (not enough to last forever, but it was enough to keep him going until the next treasury was captured/surrendered). Also, after the Granicus, he had no reason to consider anything as hostile territory until he arrived at Miletus ... and even then it was only the Persian garrison that gave him a problem - the hinterland was still his, and he was able to forage for, or buy, supplies as he needed them.

Even so, the logistics of supplying his small army must have been a constant issue - and, as you rightly say, he only had to worry about 40-50,000 ...

ATB

[Paralus]

paralus.You seem to be getting over excited. Just making a point about small numbers holding against vaste numbers.

Regardless of era. Weapons etc its all about discipline holding the line and fighting. To reflect on Isandwana a great example of stuffed shirt incompetence. Lord Chelmsford one of Queen Vics chums. That battle has been reenacted and analised by military experts and still no conclusions can be made as to why the British lost. Regardless of howmany Zulus with spears. Volley after cohetant volley should have stopped them.

G'day Kenny.

No, not "exited", rather, sorely tested. Do you know, there's an Australian film GÇô a comedy about ourselves in fact GÇô called "The Castle". It's required viewing for anyone wishing to understand our "deep psyches" and mysterious ways. I urge all Pothosians to have a gander so as they may appreciate the following shamelessly lifted and re worked line: "What is it with Greeks and Persian numbers!?" (From Farouk GÇô the Lebanese neighbour GÇô who when asked will he contribute to a neighbourhood fund to hire a lawyer immediately offers cash: "what is it with Lebs and "copulating" cash!?")

The Reason the Poms lost at Isandlwana was the fact that there so many Zulus that the British carbines overheated and jammed. The show "Battlefield Detectives" nailed it chapter and verse GÇô even down to the vast number of unfired munitions in the "stands" as the Poms fell back. Overwhelming numbers simply destroyed the technological advantage possessed by the Poms.

Alexander possessed nothing near that level technological advantage at Gaugamela. Darius possessed at most half of the empire's manpower resources and something less than that again of its "breadbaskets". Were the Macedonians facing some 300-500,000 plus Persians GÇô many mounted GÇô there will have been a different result. Those numbers will have given Darius a line that will have necessitated Alexander riding to Babylon to get around it. It will have meant Darius encircling the Macedonian right without having to get out of bed let alone GÇô as Arrian describes GÇô having to counter Alexander by feeding cavalry out to "attempt" to encircle the Macedonian right. It is in the detail of Arrian's narrative that such gems are to be found.

Marcus has dealt with the provisioning of the Macedonian army of some 47,000. You need to remember that Alexander possessed (as Darius now singularly did not) the entire resources of Asia Minor, the Lebanon and most significantly, the supermarket of the ancient world, Egypt. Oh, and their treasuries.

Anyhow, got to go GÇô mum and dad are taking the kids to the library (yes they take after dad and read GÇô and a good thing too) and then the cultural highlight of "Cars".

I'll give a review later. Maybe it might turn out a better film than Stone's?

[kennyxx]

Paralus Marcus Hail

Indeed I saw the battlefield detectives on most of the battles. The nailed down boxes. Jammed Rifles etc is basically speculative. Even stories about Zulus pumped up with drugs. Indeed the things you mention do have an effect. But a good commander.or a half desent commander would have an eye on this or his team would.

I go with mostly incompetence of commanders. I mean nailed down boxes. If I was been attacked with thousands of Zulus id break those boxes open one way or another. The rifles were reliable at Roarks drift.

I firmly believe Chelmsford was caught with his pantys down and didnt have a clue what he was doing.

Studying the Zulus the tactics and the formations. I would wager a much smaller Roman army or Macedonian formation would stop it. Lets face it the Zulu war tactics regardless of numbers was still pretty primative. Following the Isandwana fiasco. The Brits sorted themselves out following the embarrasmend and soundly wrapped the Zulu Nation up.

Kenny

[kennyxx]

Paralus Marcus Hail

Indeed I saw the battlefield detectives on most of the battles. The nailed down boxes. Jammed Rifles etc is basically speculative. Even stories about Zulus pumped up with drugs. Indeed the things you mention do have an effect. But a good commander.or a half desent commander would have an eye on this or his team would.

I go with mostly incompetence of commanders. I mean nailed down boxes. If I was been attacked with thousands of Zulus id break those boxes open one way or another. The rifles were reliable at Roarks drift.

I firmly believe Chelmsford was caught with his pantys down and didnt have a clue what he was doing.

Studying the Zulus the tactics and the formations. I would wager a much smaller Roman army or Macedonian formation would stop it. Lets face it the Zulu war tactics regardless of numbers was still pretty primative. Following the Isandwana fiasco. The Brits sorted themselves out following the embarrasmend and soundly wrapped the Zulu Nation up.

Kenny

[marcus]

Let's face it, the Zulu war tactics, regardless of numbers, was still pretty primitive.

Oddly enough, I always felt the Zulu tactics - the "buffalo" formation - was eerily reminiscent of Hannibal's grand plan at Cannae ... so perhaps not too primitive?

Following the Isandwana fiasco, the Brits sorted themselves out following the embarrassment and soundly wrapped the Zulu Nation up.

We'd better not get into the moral arguments surrounding the British incursion into Zulu territory, and their deliberate goading of Cetawayo into war, as a rank piece of Imperial aggrandisement; and therefore the fact that they jolly well deserved a bit of embarrassment at Isaldhwana!

ATB

[Paralus]

We'd better not get into the moral arguments surrounding the British incursion into Zulu territory, and their deliberate goading of Cetawayo into war, as a rank piece of Imperial aggrandisement; and therefore the fact that they jolly well deserved a bit of embarrassment at Isaldhwana!

Right you are Marcus. And that may well lead us down the path to consideration of the bastardry that lead to the Boer War. That military Queens tournament before the Wimbledon of WWI.

My recollection is that the case for the jamming rifles was - pardon the pun on your boxes - rather an open and shut case. That's not to say there weren't other contributing factors. The archaeologist, working on the theory of the respective carbine's heating and jamming problem, worked through the battlefield from the outside in. Beginning with the spent cartridges at the outer "stands" and working inwards until the cartridges being recovered - well before the centre - were still live. By the time the British had laid down fire and retreated - in proper orderly and planned fashion - several times, the rifles began jamming and presto - we have the Imperial army brought back to the Zulus.

I have some recollection that the rifles at Roark's Drift were - for the greater part - different? I can't find the particular show on the net.

In any case, the defeat was occasioned by a flood of numbers. Which numbers, according to some, were in the order of a minimum of ten to one at Gaugamela. Were that the case, the game was over before it began. As I wrote, were Darius lines to have so overlapped the Macedonian there would be little need for Darius to bother with Alexander's extending right wing. But, he seems to have had some difficulty according to Arrian who is generally acknowledged as the best of the sources when it comes to matters military and battle descriptions (Ar 3.14):

Darius now brought into action the main body of his infantry, and an order was sent to Aretes to attack the Persian cavalry which was trying to outflank and surround the Macedonian right. For a time Alexander continued to advance in column; presently, however, the movement of the Persian cavalry sent to the support of their comrades who were attempting to encircle the Macedonian rightGǪ

Note the words: "attempting", "trying" to outflank the Macedonian right. Were Darius to have had 350,000 troops at Gaugamela, there will have been GÇô in the words of Yoda GÇô no attempting or trying, just doing. Unless he stacked them fifty deep (and why do that which destroys your advantage), some simple guesswork could give one a glimpse of the extent of the Persian line. If we discount the cavalry (numbered somewhere between 30-35,000) and the chariots/elephants and assume some 310,000 foot, we have something to work with. Not all this foot will have been infantry so, let's remove some skirmishers and archers to the tune of, say, 30,000 to leave us with 280,000 odd of various infantry. Now, at say eighty centimetres between each bloke and an average depth of sixteen men, that gives us an infantry frontage of fourteen kilometres or eight and three quarter miles (be interesting to see that arrayed along the length of the Asopus near Plataea). Alexander had some 40,000 infantry GÇô not all in the line. The "allied" Greeks (how many 4-6,000?) were in the rear and several units were used GÇô along with cavalry GÇô to feed into the rightward moving right wing. Let's suggest he wound up with 30,000 in the line (allowing for those skirmishers) and used the conventional Macedonian depth of sixteen. Assuming the Macedonians are marching in compact form (synapsismos) of three feet or ninety odd centimetres apart, that gives us a frontage (minus cavalry) of some one point seven kilometres or a bit over one mile. Even allowing an average depth of eight, we still have the Macedonian line outreached by six and three quarter miles. Why the trouble in reaching around the Macedonian wing GÇô left or right?

One last observation (these figures have been adjusted since the original post - I'd a "momentary lapse of reason" and misplaced a decimal poit). How much room GÇô square metres GÇô does a combatant take up when bivouacked? An average of say 2.25 m2 (abt .5'x5')? That's not much room but let's grant it. To encamp 350,000 combatants would then require 0.788 square kilometres or some157 football fields. At 500,000 men you'd require 1.13 square kilometres or some 225 football fields. And, that's placing them neatly into a carton (like eggs) whilst ignoring the support crews.

But then, that can't be right because, Herodotus gives us a protected encampment of 900 acres for Mardonius' 300,000 which equates to 12 sq metres per combatant. That means about 4.2 sq kilometres. Take a while to get about that camp methinks.

Just a thought.

[Paralus]

Another thought. At Issus, we are told of some 600,000 Persians. Allowing room for the 30,0000 cavalry (say 150 metres) that leaves some 2,410 metres of frontage on a fourteen stade wide beach. Given we are told these numbers were arranged as a phalanx (say 90cm apart), that's a frontage of 2650 (round numbers) men. These blokes will have been stacked some 189 deep were they to have numbered 500,000. This reduces to 75 were there only 200,000 infantry.

Being plonked in the middle of the line - behind his bodyguard - how did Darius mange such a neat flight through so many? We're talking numbers the size of the larger Greek cities (and larger than the population of Athens if 500,000 is corect).

[dean]

Hi,
Must admit that, being a "Brit" myself,just running through the last few posts, I have found it interesting reading.
Just for the record- the Poms and the Aussies were there together, at the Boer wars, Dardanelles campaign....
But back to Alexander...

The zulu episode mentioned earlier with the Brits- reminded me of Alexander in the Malian town having a tough, touch and go moment.

Talking about numbers I was reading about Issus- I guess there are a number of factors to be taken into account. Who was it, when talking about Napoleon, said something along the lines of, with him on the field it was like having an extra 100000 men? well more so with Alexander.

Also the infantry of Darius at the battle was of poor quality- Alexander focused his energies on the bullseye "Darius"- once he was up and gone- it was game over so numbers mattered little then the whole thing fell apart.But you're right - God knows how he got so easily out of there- but wasn't it night when it was all wrapped up?

Either way, Alexander had the luck of the devil.

Best,
Dean

[Paralus]

Hi,
Must admit that, being a "Brit" myself,just running through the last few posts, I have found it interesting reading.
Just for the record- the Poms and the Aussies were there together, at the Boer wars, Dardanelles campaign....

Indeed! And we wouldn't have it any other way - if ever a military disaster needs management, we know under whose flag to be! (did the Athenians have a Pommy admiral in charge at Aegespotami? Leonidas too was a pom - that's why the Spartans chose him; We won't speak of the distant relative of Churchill who planned the Sicilian expedition)) Recall that marveloous line from the Aussie flick Breaker Morant where Morant explains the rule (of engagement) under which the Boer prisoners we shot:

We shot them as ordered. They died under rule 303! We shot them under rule 303!

It may well have been dusk by battle's end but, Darius had departed before this. If we accept the figures given, then somehow in this mele of panic and men, Darius found a fresh chariot and departed the scene in haste. Through all those thousands in the rear of the front ranks.

Apparently the greatest carnage took place as the Persian troops attempted to leave the field escape the butchery on the beach. Darius, though, had little problem. I suppose there may have been a Pythonesque scene with cool and calm officers calling out "The king! The king is runing away. Make a path you filth! Make way for your fleeing King!"