Dismanlting the million man ancient Chinese army myth

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

As for the Achaemenids, we really don't know much about their standing forces at all. We do know that the king had a corps-sized formation at his immediate disposal (various guard units plus, presumably, reservists from the province of Persis), and that there were some garrison units scattered around the empire. What we don't know, is how many permanent garrisons like the one at Elephantine existed, how large they were, what they were composed of, etc.

There are records of reservist cavalry holding lands in Mesopotamia and Anatolia, but those are very vague and give no idea of the numbers. Trying to guess how many men the Achaemenids had is just that, guessing. Whatever the standing figure was, it certainly expanded by an order of magnitude in wartime.

[HuangCaesar]

Of course the Roman army couldn't field 450,000 on battlefield nor a front. The Roman invasion of Germania was about 12 Legions(60,000 Legionaires) plus 40,000 Auxilia totally 100,000 men. So about 1/3 of their total army not including Foderetii. Tiberius divided them into 2 field armies for a pronged attack so about 50,000 men per battle. (Unfortuantley Tiberius had to withdraw 8 Legions to Illyria, leaving Varus with only 3, so a field army of about 20,000 men at Teutburg) The invasion of Illyria was about 100,000. Trajan's invasion of Dacia was about 200,000 about 2/3 of his total army(plus Trajan created new Legions) About 11 Legions plus many Auxila and Foderetii. However on a battlefield Rome in Dacia fielded only about 50,000 men per battle(Tapae, Sarmizagathuza) where 9 Legions spearheaded the advance supported by some Auxilia. Aurelian's invasion of Paulmayre was about 180,000 men but 60,000 fought in the actual battle. Constantine's battles were about 100,000 in Mivlian bridge and Adrianople. Later in the Roman empire, field armies were spread out. The Roman elite field army of 100,000 men was in Persia so Valens could only assemble 30,000 to stop the Goths, but only 15,000 fought at Adrianople.

Garrisons are often controlled by the local government if anything and rarely used for military purposes because they are not designed to assemble. 150,000 is the nationized force of Persia around the Media area. Since the Persian empire was the exact same number of population of Roman empire, and their assembling and logistical techniques are poorer, and history of allied troops rarely exceeded nationalized forces by any great numbers, it is safe to assume that that the total fighting capacity of Persia is about 300,000 total throughout the whole empire.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Garrisons are often controlled by the local government

We only have one garrison to go by, the Elephantine garrison, and it certainly wasn't controlled by the local government - its main reason of existence was to keep the Egyptians down. More evidence for that comes from the fact that while it was located in the deep south of Egypt, it consisted of mostly Aramaic-named soldiers, commanded by Iranian officers, IIRC.

if anything and rarely used for military purposes because they are not designed to assemble.

That much is true for most garrisons, though not in the case of empires like Rome or Persia. They were more like armies stationed in the provinces to quell rebellions, defeat enemy incursions and fight whatever the local enemies might be in limited, offensive operations. However, it really is doubtful whether the Achaemenids could ever afford to move the garrisons out of Egypt.

150,000 is the nationized force of Persia around the Media area.

That is pure conjecture. We don't actually have anything to go by for the reservist numbers. Do note, however, that the core Achaemenid army would include not just men from Persis and Media, but also most of the other Iranian provinces as well as Mesopotamia. I don't quite understand what you mean by "nationalized" force, considering that the empire was not a nation in the modern sense, but a collection of lands ruled by the emperor and his government. If you mean it in contrast to provincial levies, you must understand that they weren't autonomous vassal kingdoms, they were provinces ruled by Iranian satraps appointed by the king. Thus whatever levies could be raised in a province did not constitute any sort of local army in themselves.

Since the Persian empire was the exact same number of population of Roman empire,

You sure about that? The largest estimate's I've heard for its population are 50 million at greatest extent.

and their assembling and logistical techniques are poorer, and history of allied troops rarely exceeded nationalized forces by any great numbers, it is safe to assume that that the total fighting capacity of Persia is about 300,000 total throughout the whole empire.

No. It's safe to assume that you just came up with a number yourself, not supported by any sort of concrete evidence.

As I said, we have no idea, because we have no reliable source material to go by. The total, theoretical logistical capacity? Well, probably in excess of million men, but in practice? No idea whatsoever. In fact, we can't even be sure that their total manpower potential exceeded a million, since we have no reliable figure of their population.

[HuangCaesar]

We only have one garrison to go by, the Elephantine garrison, and it certainly wasn't controlled by the local government - its main reason of existence was to keep the Egyptians down. More evidence for that comes from the fact that while it was located in the deep south of Egypt, it consisted of mostly Aramaic-named soldiers, commanded by Iranian officers, IIRC.

That much is true for most garrisons, though not in the case of empires like Rome or Persia. They were more like armies stationed in the provinces to quell rebellions, defeat enemy incursions and fight whatever the local enemies might be in limited, offensive operations. However, it really is doubtful whether the Achaemenids could ever afford to move the garrisons out of Egypt..

Garrisons can be both convential military(mostly emergencies or border troops). Vigiles and Town watch are not considered Roman soldiers. They are local government troops. However local garrisons are no means army size. Cladius Glaber was only able to assemble a couple thousand troops against Spartacus and this was in the heart of Italy. My point is the Allied military force would be no larger than the conventional national troops. Plus you don't want allied troops to get super powerful so there is no reason to allow your allies to be the same size as your army. For example Gaul had 300,000 total fighters, did the Romans add those numbers to their army when they conquered Gaul? No Auxilia were often mixed races and Foderetii are often small numbers plus there is their a risk of fielding ally forces in that number.

That is pure conjecture. We don't actually have anything to go by for the reservist numbers. Do note, however, that the core Achaemenid army would include not just men from Persis and Media, but also most of the other Iranian provinces as well as Mesopotamia. I don't quite understand what you mean by "nationalized" force, considering that the empire was not a nation in the modern sense, but a collection of lands ruled by the emperor and his government. If you mean it in contrast to provincial levies, you must understand that they weren't autonomous vassal kingdoms, they were provinces ruled by Iranian satraps appointed by the king. Thus whatever levies could be raised in a province did not constitute any sort of local army in themselves.

You sure about that? The largest estimate's I've heard for its population are 50 million at greatest extent...

Both Rome and Persia was 50 million. Satraps are often their own soveriety for example Persian satraps often defected to Alexander. Persia often allowed kings to self rule, therefore "king of kings". Vassal or not, I doubt it would have massive by any means. Even the professional Roman Auxilia was only 100,000-200,000 total. So I don't expect 1 million troops. These satrap kingdoms didn't the national money to field that kind of army. Explain to me why the Satraps of Turkey were unable to field a massive force against Alexander at Grannicus? All of Alexander's battles, the Persian army is no means massive. Neither was the first invasion of Greece. The only sources of a massive Persian is propaganda from Herototus.
Yes 300,000 total army is an accurate number if you add every satrap and every ally.

As I said, we have no idea, because we have no reliable source material to go by. The total, theoretical logistical capacity? Well, probably in excess of million men, but in practice? No idea whatsoever. In fact, we can't even be sure that their total manpower potential exceeded a million, since we have no reliable figure of their population.

Roman logistics relied on Legionaires carrying their supplies. Persian army was less organized with corps of troops speaking different language plus mass baggage trains. Its hard to believe their manpower superiorty was vastly superior than Roman army.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Garrisons can be both convential military(mostly emergencies or border troops). Vigiles and Town watch are not considered Roman soldiers.

Hold right there. Where the did I suggest as much that the Persian garrison at Elephantine was in any way similar to the Vigiles? It was a military unit. In Egypt. Consisting (presumably) of Mesopotamian/Syrian/Palestinian troops, under Persian officers. I mentioned that twice.

Both Rome and Persia was 50 million.

The most commonly cited population figure I've seen for Rome is around 80 million at peak. For Achaemenid Persia, there are estimates in the 30-50 million range for the most part.

Satraps are often their own soveriety

No. Achaemenid satraps were never sovereign. They were appointed by the king, and all their authority was derived from him.

for example Persian satraps often defected to Alexander.

That's a very specific set of circumstances at play, it doesn't mean they were leaders of states. You might as well suggest that legions were purely private retinues of their commanders because they often followed the latter against other Romans.

Persia often allowed kings to self rule

Find me one case of a sovereign monarch retaining his throne after Achaemenid conquest, and I'll believe you. Sure, they left some autonomous elements like tribes in mountainous regions or the Phoencian cities, but those were always under the authority of a larger satrapy. Not a single satrapy was ruled by a dynasty of kings in their own right. Satraps were governors.

, therefore "king of kings".

Using semantics is no argument at all. Turns out, Idi Amin did actually rule in Scotland because his title said "king of Scotland".

Vassal or not, I doubt it would have massive by any means. Even the professional Roman Auxilia was only 100,000-200,000 total. So I don't expect 1 million troops. These satrap kingdoms didn't the national money to field that kind of army. Explain to me why the Satraps of Turkey were unable to field a massive force against Alexander at Grannicus? All of Alexander's battles, the Persian army is no means massive. Neither was the first invasion of Greece. The only sources of a massive Persian is propaganda from Herototus.

You keep stating your opinions and making broad claims, yet you don't seem to be able to support them. Neither do you actually argue with my point. I said "theoretical logistical capacity", as in, what the empire with its population could theoretically raise and support. Not what they actually had.

Why the satraps didn't have a massive army? I don't know, perhaps because they didn't/couldn't raise one with the authority/funds/divine favor at their disposal?

Yes 300,000 total army is an accurate number if you add every satrap and every ally.

No. 300'000 is a number you pulled out of your arse. Argue semantics all you want, you don't have any actual evidence of any type to support that number.

It's pure conjecture. Not fact.

Roman logistics relied on Legionaires carrying their supplies. Persian army was less organized with corps of troops speaking different language plus mass baggage trains. Its hard to believe their manpower superiorty was vastly superior than Roman army.

I don't even...

[Cyclops]

Back oj toipic, I have no doubt many Chinese dynasties had manpower pools of many millions of men available to draw on. IIRC from my ancient chinese studies ordinary non noble people were subject to forced labour and military service to their liege lords. Theoretically a ruler could call up every able-bodied man, that'd be millions in the Han period, let alone later dynasties.

Others have mentioned the limiting factors (money, equipment, and I'd add obedience: many local officials would blanch at the prospect of calling every man in his village away from his farm and family).

I wonder how many men under arms each dynasty could and did field, in normal circumstances and in a total war footing? I wonder how much the decision was affected by questions of quality and effectiveness? I recall in WW2 the US decided on the 80-division army (cleverly creating units numbered 101st etc to fool the Hun) in order to retain manpower for production and specialist areas.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

^ and in this case retaining manpower for agriculture and empire maintenance. As many lords did in Japan as well, Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea required the feudal lords to put together a massive army some clans like the Shimazu and Date provided like 4,000 men each. But what is Hideyoshi gonna do if his army is in Korea, well turn a blind of course and hope that those contingents perform extremely well.

[hellheaven1987]

Why the satraps didn't have a massive army? I don't know, perhaps because they didn't/couldn't raise one with the authority/funds/divine favor at their disposal?

It probably had to do with manpower and finance (and some political trust, as large private military than necessary always attract the attention of Great King).

They had 30 divisions with 10,000 men per division spread around the empire.

Who said that? I have not read a primary source suggests that.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Yeah now that Hellheaven brought that up I haven't seen that either. I remember there being 33 divisions that were like a third newly raised and conscripted so that they could invade Greece in the Second War and most others being satrap armies.

[hellheaven1987]

General speaking, there were three types of military in Achaemenid Empire:

- Directly under the Great King, including reserved units under Great King.

- Allied force in or out of Empire, this part only answered to Great King himself as the treaty generally was signed between Great King and the receiving party, even if they might under the civil rule of some satraps (in this case satrap's role generally was to oversee the treaty be obligated).

- Satrap's own military, answer only to satrap himself.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

and it is the numbers of the second category which are almost impossible to know. Most of them being tribesmen that live within the empires that are conscripted or volunteer. The allied troops outside of the empire all depend on how much that ally wants to give (unless they have a specific number of troops in some contract or something). The allies living within the Persian empire are mostly unregistered tribes and I don't think that there are any ways of knowing their number either unless some sort of record exists that tell us the amount of troops that these people are supposed to give by agreement. Even the amount of Greeks from Thebes and Macedon that served in the Persian army we can't really know. Many of the Persian divisions were composed of these allies and as we would expect for those type of peoples that were conscripted and volunteer their contributions weren't very large... and yet they alone could make up an entire division. So I would say that the Persian military system has less to do with numbers and more to do with organizing X amount of people into a certain division.
It might have to do with fighting styles though.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Hellheaven, manpower is one thing and the ability to deploy it is another. The satraps of western Anatolia probably had a population of several million at their disposal, which could have theoretically supported a couple hundred thousand troops.

Yet the reality of the situation probably was that there were not enough men in the established military structure (landed reservists, colonist and local nobility with their retainers, mercenaries, satrapal guards, royal garrison units), and there were not enough funds, resources and time to conscript, train and mobilize a brand new army. Especially considering that a large proportion of the Anatolian population, the Lydians, had been forbidden to carry arms.

[HuangCaesar]

Hold right there. Where the did I suggest as much that the Persian garrison at Elephantine was in any way similar to the Vigiles? It was a military unit. In Egypt. Consisting (presumably) of Mesopotamian/Syrian/Palestinian troops, under Persian officers. I mentioned that twice.

And how large were these garrisons? Hundreds of thousands?

The most commonly cited population figure I've seen for Rome is around 80 million at peak. For Achaemenid Persia, there are estimates in the 30-50 million range for the most part.

So how the hell can Persia field more than Rome huh? Even irregular forces usually don't exceed the standing corp army.

No. Achaemenid satraps were never sovereign. They were appointed by the king, and all their authority was derived from him.
That's a very specific set of circumstances at play, it doesn't mean they were leaders of states. You might as well suggest that legions were purely private retinues of their commanders because they often followed the latter against other Romans.

Satraps employ their own troops(which never really seem to be massive in any way in Alexander's invasion). Private retinues? Only in the Republican period. And the Republican period only saw about 60+Legions and a few Foderettii troops, about 300,000.

You keep stating your opinions and making broad claims, yet you don't seem to be able to support them. Neither do you actually argue with my point. I said "theoretical logistical capacity", as in, what the empire with its population could theoretically raise and support. Not what they actually had.

Why the satraps didn't have a massive army? I don't know, perhaps because they didn't/couldn't raise one with the authority/funds/divine favor at their disposal?

Broad claims? Armies are often 1 percent of the population or less, especially in Ancient times.

Yeah they didn't so, that means the army is no means massive. Persian field armies were no more than 100,000 often.

No. 300'000 is a number you pulled out of your arse. Argue semantics all you want, you don't have any actual evidence of any type to support that number.

Anything wrong with that?

From what I know the corp of Proffesional soldiers ranged only about 150,000. These troops can both be Persis and median or foreign. The invasions of Greece first in modern estimates would be no more than 100,000. The second no more than 200,000. Satrap troops are uncapable of fielding hundreds of thousands of troops with their funds so how the hell would they get hundreds of thousands. Even added up high numbers to the hundreds of thousands seem bogus. 20,000 in a combined satrap attempt to stop Alexander at Grannicus, multiple cities were left defended in poor numbers then(the reason why no battles took in that place till Issus) 100,000 field army of Darius at Issus(20,000 died) and 80,000 at Gaugemela. The rest mop up work. So how can anyone accept that the Persian army was somehow massive by all means?

Hellheaven, manpower is one thing and the ability to deploy it is another. The satraps of western Anatolia probably had a population of several million at their disposal, which could have theoretically supported a couple hundred thousand troops.

Yet the reality of the situation probably was that there were not enough men in the established military structure (landed reservists, colonist and local nobility with their retainers, mercenaries, satrapal guards, royal garrison units), and there were not enough funds, resources and time to conscript, train and mobilize a brand new army. Especially considering that a large proportion of the Anatolian population, the Lydians, had been forbidden to carry arms.

A couple of hundreds of thousand troops raised by a couple of satraps in one area? Yeah right. A population of a couple million.....I doubt they could even have 50,000 active troops. Seriously, if Western Anatolia could have that many troops, Xerxes would have plowed Greece to the ground. Alexander would have been stopped dead in his tracks at Granicus.