How exaggerated are accounts of antiquity and medieval army sizes?

>>2427998
>Isn't it more likely battles probably consisted of maybe like a few hundred people, then it was exaggerated the fuck out of?

NOT REALLY.

What reason have you to believe that troop counts were exaggerated?

>>2427998

Ceasar describes battles involving hundreds of thousands as well. Considering Romans were big fans of counting things, I'm sure the figures are relatively accurate.

Theres probably some degree of exaggeration, but dont forget that logistics chains back then didnt need to carry ammunition, fuel, tools for repairing vehicles etc, so might have been simpler to manage

>>2428029
Caesar was a politician, he exaggerated to make himself look good.

>>2427998
Sometimes they are exaggerated and sometimes they are not.

Historiography usually decides which is which through debate among historians.

THE PREVALENT POPULAR, AND ACADEMIC, NOTION THAT TROOPCOUNTS WERE EXAGGERATED IN HISTORICAL RECORDS IS SYMPTOMATIC OF SOCIOCULTURAL DEGENERATION.

A DEGENERATED SOCIOCULTURE LACKS MARTIALISM; A MANIFESTATION OF THAT LACK INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, UNWARRANTED INCREDULITY TOWARD MILITARY FEATS, OR EVENTS, WHICH HAVE BECOME INCONCEIVABLE IN THE MINDS OF SPIRITUALLY CRIPPLED INDIVIDUALS.

>>2428040
this

caesar is overrated as fuck

Yes. This happens all the time.

Look at the sources for any ancient battle.

Look at the discussion of troop sizes and the differing claims from the various historians.

Happens all the time.

>Battle of Gaugamela - 331 BC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela#Size_of_Macedonian_army

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela#Size_of_Persian_army

>Warry estimates a total size of 91,000; Welman 90,000; Delbrück (1978) 52,000; Engels (1920) and Green (1990) no larger than 100,000.

>>2427998
>Even in the modern day, logistics for having thousands of people in battle is overwhelming,
Nowadays every weapon system is extremely maintenance heavy, the roman legions (5k men) had 1k men of baggage train, in modern armies non fighting personel outnumbers the fighting part. Look at Syria, we don't see large scale tank battle because of the huge number of technicians and logistics.

antiquity and medieval armies didn't have that, besides some siege weapons, no foul, no spare parts for tanks, no ammo, soldiers maintained all their weapons themselves and no Apaches that need 6 hours of maintenance for one hour flight in the desert. And you could just plunder the area if you are in the enemies lands


>how in fuck did they manage things like ... toiletry, hygiene, fresh water etc etc etc for tens of thousands of people?
They didn't, that's why so many died of illnesses

>>2428063
What justification is there in the first place to presume that the counts were exaggerated?

None.

>>2428040

What part of relatively accurate didn't you understand? He could make 200.000 into 300.000 to make himself look good but I highly doubt he would get away with multiplying the number of enemies by ten.

File: Detaille_4th_French_hussar_at_Friedland.jpg (2MB, 1417x1191px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1417x1191px

>>2427998
>how in fuck did they manage things like supply lines, toiletry, hygiene, command, fresh water

See, up to the Napoleonic era (and even then, during it), armies lived largely off the lands they marched through. This was possible because logistics back then were simple enough—all you really need to keep marching is food and water, and that can be got by sending a few details out to nearby farms and taking all there is to be had. Supply lines weren't so much a thing back then; armies carried everything they needed in a baggage train at the rear of their marching column.

Toiletry and hygiene are easy to enforce so long as you have officers actually enforcing it. Just look at Valley Forge; one of the first things Baron Von Steuben did upon arriving with the Continental Army was teach everybody how to properly order their camps and build proper latrines downhill from the mess tents. Likewise, commanding troops in battle is a matter of training men to fight as a unit rather than individuals, and having leadership which can effectively push them to whatever objective needs to be accomplished.

>>2428079
Who's going to stop him? His veterans who supported him back in Rome? The senate? The Gauls?

>>2428086

Jesus christ are you retarded man? By that logic the whole battle probably didn't even happen. He just made it up because it sounded good.

You think nobody among the tens of thousands of Romans present there would take note if the number of enemies was entirely made up? Also where does Ceasar get 200.000 captured slaves if the enemy only had 10.000 people?

>>2428025
OP literally stated why in his post. Logistics for armies of that size would be insane.

But, OP, you're failing to include in those army sizes just how many of them were straight up baggage men in charge of logistics. There was an entire industry around marching armies. People literally made a career out of following armies and selling food and supplies at a premium. That's not including foraging parties and game hunters organized or hired by the general themselves.

Baggage trains were extensive. As per sanitation, it was a problem and the number one killer of armies. A great deal of deAths came due to attrition from disease.

I believe it was Alexander that stated the ideal army size was about 40,000 men.

>>2428130

Logistics become easier the greater the number of people.

File: um.png (191KB, 419x398px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 419x398px

>>2428138
>Logistics become easier the greater the number of people
Looks like somebody has brain problems.

>>2428066
>no foul

They had plenty of foul, they were soldiers after all.

>>2428140
Did you even try to think about it before posting that?

>>2428153
shut up retard

>>2428073
Are you retarded?

Historians discuss this shit at length.

Every motherfucker who writes a new book on a battle goes back and scientifically analysis the shit that was already done before him.

Yeah motherfucker. Your random anon ass on a Mongolian paper folding website is better at history than the professionals.

>>2428063
>Warry estimates a total size of 91,000; Welman 90,000; Delbrück (1978) 52,000; Engels (1920) and Green (1990) no larger than 100,000.

>Implying they aren't just pulling numbers out of their ass.

All these numbers modern historians come up with are based purely on assumptions about the logistics capabilities of ancient armies, for which we have only extremely patchy archaeological evidence.

>>2428257
>Academic speculation based on nothing constitutes valid justification.

You're retarded.

>>2428257
>Your random anon ass on a Mongolian paper folding website is better at history than the professionals.

No, but primary sources are.

>>2428257
>>2428063
>whoa, these people with academic credentials and peer biased consensus said it, so it must be true! :^)

>>2428313

Huh.. No. Well rarely anyways.

Herodotus said Xerxes had something like 1.7 million infantry men during the medic wars, drying rivers just by drinking water.

If you believe this more than modern estimations just because Herodotus happens to be a primary source (and the father of history) then you're a fool.

>>2428393

I meant Greco-Persian wars. (I'm not a native english speaker)

>>2428104
You literally think there was a million men at Alesia? If you do, I got a bridge to sell you.

Caesar basically genocided the Gauls. He took any opportunity to drive north of the Cisalpine and plunder everything and enslave everyone from the River Po to the English Channel. The armies he fought against were composed of the warrior nobles of the tribes he conquered. After he annihilated their armies and removed their ability to defend themselves, he helped himself to the thousands of noncombatant civilians in the aftermath.

>nobody among the tens of thousands of Romans present would take note if the number of enemies was entirely made up?
First of all, if you were literate and numbered, you're probably an officer and at least minor gentry. Why would you contradict the man who has the ability to determine the course of your career? You literally depend on his patronage to be placed in positions of great prestige and rack up dignitas.
Second of all, you will almost certainly never know the whole picture. Only the high command would. And you are fine with this because you are now part of the army that killed a million Gauls and enslaved a million more. You are rolling in prestige and girls get wet when you tell em you're with Caesar's boys, slaying poon left and right. You're a fucking hero basically, along with your buddies. No one would fuck this up and anyone who did would be shouted down and called a lying faggot.

>>2428487
His political enemies were as influential - in all their criticism of Caesar, "you lied about Gaul, catamite" never came up. It's like believing the US never landed people on the Moon and the USSR just went along with it.