Dismanlting the million man ancient Chinese army myth

[hellheaven1987]

No one actually know the size of Achaemenid standard military, and even ancient sources did not try to pretend the Achaemenid army on field was fully standard.

[Roma_Victrix]

So ultimately war is about money. You fight over money and you need money to fight.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the quote of the day. Send out the memo!

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Aurelian's invasion of Paulyara(about 160,000)

Isn't that a pretty high estimate? Considering that he could only draw forces from the Danube and Africa (minus Egypt) and that he had to leave adequate forces in these areas, which were threatened by Germanic, Gothic and Berber invasions and the looming threat of the Gallic Empire, I doubt Aurelian would have had more than 80-90.000 troops.

[HuangCaesar]

Seeing how the Crisis army was estimated 389,704 total by Treadgold. an invasion force of 150,000+ is not unbelievable on one front. Just search up the Battle of Emesa against Paulymayre. Zozimus claims about 180,000 total invasion (65,000 field army of Aurelian fought at the Battle vs Paulymayre's 70,000.)

[Col. Tartleton]

No one actually know the size of Achaemenid standard military, and even ancient sources did not try to pretend the Achaemenid army on field was fully standard.

They had 30 divisions with 10,000 men per division spread around the empire. Not unlike the Romans if you presume they had roughly equal numbers of auxiliaries and legionaries. They were in no way standardized, but they were professionals. Ranged from Indians to Greeks and Steppe Nomads to Bedouins. I'm sure the Imperial Guard Division were the only truly standardized force although the other Iranian divisions were presumably similar.

The Achaemenids controlled approximately twice as much land and almost twice the population of the Sui Chinese. We're talking 5 times the land area of modern Iran and approximately the same population (as modern Iran, not the modern area they controlled.)

300,000 men in a country of like 70 million is about what modern countries have for standing armies. France has 65 million people and keeps about 220k active military personnel, 100k reserve, and 100k gendarmes. Britain has 200k actives and 180k reserves with a population of 63 million.

I'd say 1 in 300 people under arms is a good peacetime estimate for a stable society. That's still roughly where the US is with global military obligations. Full mobilization might be 1 in 10. In North Korea it's 4 in 10. But they're crazy people.

I believe that the Roman Empire's borders at it's height under Trajan include what is now about 700 million people. Antiquity was probably 1/5 or 1/6 of that. Say 120 million. Then the 1 in 300 figure gives a standing army of about 390,000 which is higher or lower depending on the period in question and the circumstances required. 3-400,000 seems safe for Pax Romana. Civil wars could probably double that figure on the high end.

These of course being proper military. The logistics of moving supplies are going to be civilians and fluctuate based on the density of military operations. In decentralized garrisons of a thousand men or so the local economy could most likely support their needs. When brought together you need to take the economy with you. So then you start adding in the demands of the civilians and the logistics become increasingly large and unwieldy. So obviously the largest field army you can get in an area before industrialization is 600,000 (Leipzig.) The coalition had over a million soldiers, but only 380 could be brought to bear. Effectively I think an Army Group vs Army Group is the largest thing you can actually call a battle.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Assuming that the satraps would keep that many divisions at maximum strength and there existed the infrastructure and logistical capabilities in every province to do this.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Seeing how the Crisis army was estimated 389,704 total by Treadgold. an invasion force of 150,000+ is not unbelievable on one front. Just search up the Battle of Emesa against Paulymayre. Zozimus claims about 180,000 total invasion (65,000 field army of Aurelian fought at the Battle vs Paulymayre's 70,000.)

He doesn't claim such number as wikipedia falsely claims. Zosimus only refers to the numerical strength of the Palmyrene army in Emesa (70.000) and only mentions that Aurelian had legions (or better parts of legions) from Raetia, Noricum, Moesia and Pannonia, as well as cavalry from Mauritania and Dalmatia. Later his army was reinforced by local contingents from Asia Minor and Mesopotamia. I did a search and the 180.000 troops seems to be an estimation of Titus Saunders from his 1991 thesis "A Biography of the Emperor Aurelian", which I can't find in Amazon. On Treadgold's figure, does it refer to the Roman army before or after the division of the Roman Empire under Gallienus?

[Col. Tartleton]

Assuming that the satraps would keep that many divisions at maximum strength and there existed the infrastructure and logistical capabilities in every province to do this.

I don't see why it would be immensely difficult for each province to have 1-2 divisions.

I should think that was one of their primary duties as Satrap. To ensure the local contribution to the national military was maintained.

We are told that the Guard Division was maintained at 10,000 no matter what. The other units were obviously less important but there must have been a desire to keep the army intact in the case it was needed. It's not like Persia wasn't dealing with internal and external threats all the time. Are you skeptical that Ptolemaic Egypt was able to raise tens of thousands of men? That was from a single Persian Province... Albeit one of the most important ones. Dahae was of course less populated than Egypt but there were steppe nomads to raise and they're going to be a larger percentage of the available population and probably cheaper to outfit because they're more self sufficient.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empire could raise at least a combined force of 140.000 troops, while utilizing a very small number of local Asian and African troops. The mass of their troops were Greeks/Macedonians and mercenaries. On the contrary, Persia made heavy use of local contingents, Medes, Bactrians, Egyptians, Scythians, Sogdians and hundreds of other tribes, so it's safe to assume they could raise at least 300.000 troops.

[HuangCaesar]

Selucid standing army would be no more than 70,000, the rest from its client states. Phtolemic army had serious manpower problems. I would not suspect a massive army of an means. The Persians used a satrap system of many distant kings with their own tribal armies that spoke their own language. Seeing their system is less sophisticated than Romans and population about the same of the Romans, I don't suspect the Persian army to be super massive by 300 means. The Total invasion of Greece was probally only about 250,000. Probaly on 70,000 at Thermopayle.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I'm just saying IF they can accomplish what is required then they could raise such a force, I am not saying that it cannot be done. Although we also have to take into account auxilias and allied troops from various nomadic tribes in Iran, Arabia, Thrace and the allied Scythians of the steppe.

[HuangCaesar]

I doubt 1 million like sources say. Nor even 500,000. The Standing army would be no more 150,000. Allied system would be dependent the politics than military mobilization. They should not be compared Roman Auxilia but Roman Foderettii.

[Roma_Victrix]

@HuangCaesar, what do you mean by standing army? Are you still talking about Han China? As I mentioned on the previous page, no matter how large the armed force comprised of temporary two-year peasant conscripts (and during Eastern Han, volunteers) was, the Han Empire's real full-time professional standing army, the Northern Army (Beijun 北軍), contained about only 5,000 troops. There was also the capital guard at Luoyang largely made up of professional mercenaries.

I should think that was one of their primary duties as Satrap. To ensure the local contribution to the national military was maintained.

That system of recruitment, in Achaemenid fashion, was continued by the Parthians, although they had an even greater decentralized model of governance. For that matter, how did the Parthians fare against the Achaemenids in terms of figures for overall recruitment? For starters, the Parthian Empire was much smaller at its height than the Achaemenid Empire was at its zenith, including all of Egypt.

[Col. Tartleton]

I doubt 1 million like sources say. Nor even 500,000. The Standing army would be no more 150,000. Allied system would be dependent the politics than military mobilization. They should not be compared Roman Auxilia but Roman Foderettii.

I know I always lie about how much stronger I am than the other guy before I lose the fight.

There's no obvious reason to doubt that enormous armies were raised occasionally in the pre industrial era and then disastrously imploded.

Every time there's mention of a zerg rush it always, always, always ends in the invader starving to death like a mile over the border because the enemy shockingly didn't stand there and wait for them.

[HuangCaesar]

No I was talking about the Persian army.

[HuangCaesar]

@HuangCaesar, what do you mean by standing army? Are you still talking about Han China? As I mentioned on the previous page, no matter how large the armed force comprised of temporary two-year peasant conscripts (and during Eastern Han, volunteers) was, the Han Empire's real full-time professional standing army, the Northern Army (Beijun 北軍), contained about only 5,000 troops. There was also the capital guard at Luoyang largely made up of professional mercenaries.



That system of recruitment, in Achaemenid fashion, was continued by the Parthians, although they had an even greater decentralized model of governance. For that matter, how did the Parthians fare against the Achaemenids in terms of figures for overall recruitment? For starters, the Parthian Empire was much smaller at its height than the Achaemenid Empire was at its zenith, including all of Egypt.

No I was talking about the Persians. They mainly used a government funded central Persian army backed up by Satraps allies. The Chinese soldiers would considered Auxilia if anything since they territories were mainly Chinese Imperial government controlled rather than mercenary or allied troop. Allied temporary forces would often be very small, due to logistics of that small nation to field a significant forces. Plus trust, a powerful mercenary state could threaten their boss nation. Roman Republican Socii in Italy would only made up about the same size of Roman citizen army. No means a massive boost to army size.

For Carthage, their mercenaries by the time of 2nd Punic War would be more Auxilia than actually mercenary. Carthaginian provinces were often Punicized and had Phoenician governors. The Numidian cavalry and Gauls could defined as allied or mercenary since their territory were not under Carthaginian control and more sovereign client states than anything. Greeks were probably mercenaries since a lot of Greek colonies were not in Punic control. Iberians at first mercenaries but as Carthagians controlled Iberia more and more, they became more proffesionalized and Auxiliazed. The core of Hannibal's army was Libyans, Liby Phonecians, and Iberians. Hannibal used his Gauls as cannon foder basicly.

Anyway in the first Punic War, Carthage made huge mistake not paying they allied forces.

Roman Foderettii(barbarian allies) of the Imperial period would be no larger than 20-40,000 strong. Even Late Empire, I don't allied Gothic armies were any means massive. There was only 20,000 at Fridigus, 30,000-50,000 at the Sack of Rome.

Selucid army was mainly made up of its Greek corp of settlers. Garrisons were guarded by civilian militia in all its territories and client states so they should be police than actual military. Due to the lack of Greeks, Selucids used allied mercenaries who do no have Greek ethnicity in corps based on ethnicities. However these numbers are no means mass boost to their army size and would have only made up about the same size of their citizen force of less but no boost to their numbers to the 100 of thousands. Selucid army its peak was about 70,000 strong, so with allied forces combined was about 140,000 total maybye.

The Persian relied of centralized professional force of 150,000. I doubt their total army to go over 300,000 or 1 million like sources say . Parthia relied on Auxilia troops from its pronvces but their cental corps would be 20,000 horsemen. The total Parthian army would be about 100,000+, the fielded about 60,000 in Mark Antony's war and field army of 40,000 in a single field army. China's army can considered national Auxilia army since that could levy troops on mass and consctipition.

[Dr. Croccer]

Also, since some of our members here believed that even a much smaller Gaul had 2 million warriors, the number of 1+ million Chinese soldiers is not really outlandish.

The Gallic numbers are more dubious than the Chinese ones though. Even if Caesar wasn't exaggerating for effect as classical writers were wont to do, he relied heavily on estimates and spy information to come to his conclusion. That having been said, considering that Gallic society revolved heavily around semi-feudal overlordship and tribal levies as it was, an allied confederacy aimed at a common enemy would've been extremely large in relation to the population. Coupled with Caedar's observation that the largest Gallic hosts were quickly troubled by lack of supplies and dispersed it is possible that there could've been a total of 0.5-1.5 million or so warriors in a Gaul with a population of around 6-10 million, though organisation on the field would've been incredibly unstable as a result.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Because the Achaemenid army was composed of feudal elements then we can't actually know the size of the Achaemenid military. Aside from that we would have to take into account some volunteers and militias as well as allied troops, which as HuangCaesar noted depends more on the contribution of said allies.
Roma Victrix mentioned the Parthians and how the Parthians used mostly the same recruitment method, indeed the Parthians in one field army only ever managed to raise a field army of 60,000 in the 30s BC.

Many of the Achaemenid divisions that made up the army of the Greek Invasions were severely understrength and there are cases of multiple divisions being made up of only 2,000 men as opposed to the required 10,000 men per division. If the Persians actually brought 300,000 and they needed to start recruiting conscripts just so that they could fill up those numbers, then what the hell did they garrison their empire with? My number for the Persians in Greece is 140,000 - 200,000 at most and taking into account that by Plataea the Persians had about half of their force still in Greece (about 100,000) then the full Persian army must have been somewhere between 140,000 and 200,000. Truth is though we can't be sure, because it all depends with satraps and provinces.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Just a note guys, total numbers and numbers on a battlefield are two entirely different things. The Romans could keep an army of around 450k men, all types, but that doesn't mean they ever fielded anywhere near that number on a single battlefield. Consider fighting the Persians, for example. They'd have to keep the entire European and African parts of their empire defended, which already takes up more than half of the forces available. Then they need enough men to garrison the Persian frontier in the sectors they're not attacking through. And then they need men to garrison their gains, protect the advancing army's supply lines and flanks.

Not to mention that (at least when they were well used to invading Persia) they generally wouldn't limit themselves to a single attack, often having two or more forces attacking along the "front".

Now take all this, and apply to China as well.

[HuangCaesar]

Feudal element and allies often do not add much to your total force due to those feudal states are often weaker and smaller than your standing nationalized force. Plus you don't want your allies to be too strong. So Allied troops rarely exceeded the National force. For the Pre-Marian Roman army had about half their army are Italian Socii force, the Selucid army had only a couple of tens of thousands of troops of mercenaries but mostly Greeks, Carthage's army was mercenarized but their Libyans were the main corp, a heavily Punized and the Iberians would have been Auxiliarized under Carthage's control, and Imperial Roman army, allied troops the Foderetti numbered only about 40,000 as opposed to the nationalized 125,000 Legionaires and 200,000+Auxilia(many were Romanized from provinces led by Roman commander). Since the Persian army had about a nationalized force of about 120,0000-150,000. I highly doubt their total army with allies included exceeded 300,000. Most garrisons are not military(unless emergency) and controlled by the local governments as police forces and the boss nation would probably never bother employing them.