50,000 man army possibly found after 2500 years

[Wolrab]

I wonder what, "Luke one of the world's greatest historians" has to say about it.

 

[justcharlie09]

We have to realize that any quest for precise and objective history accounts is a modern one. It was not the purpose of ancient historians to tell the objective story. Their purpose was to glorify whoever paid for their food.

Hans

I dunno if that's completely relegated to the past. I'd say there are enough "journalists" out there doing the same thing today

To the OP, thanks for the post. Interesting story!

 

[McHrozni]

It's not about the raw numbers they could have supported, though. Fielding an army is not simply about your available manpower. Taking the figures for Thermopylae quoted above for example, that sort of army could simply not be supplied, and the forward troops on the march would have stripped the territories they past through long before the rearward ones had even left the empire.

Supply situation certainly was a major issue, and often decided victory or defeat. The two cases presented, however, are not implausible. At Thermopylae, the army was relatively close to the frontier of the Persian empire in Asia minor. It had a relatively safe supply line to within 500 km (if not less) of the battlefield, and notable production nearby. Secondly, the army marched through the relatively wealthy and relatively friendly region of Macedonia. Thirdly, it marched along the sea, with their fleet supporting them when it could.
Supplying an army of 200,000 by sea indefinitely at the time was fesiable with the distances present in the situation. Rome fed at least twice as many of it's people through overseas imports a few centuries later, with only marginally better seafaring technology, and over a much greater distance.

Gaugamela, on the other hand, was in the middle of the Persian empire, they had a safe line of supply, and safe storage space available beforehand. It was also just north of Mesopotamia, one of the main grain baskets of the Empire. It definitely was difficult, but not impossible to sustain what would amount to a large city in the relatively well developed internal regions of their empire.

McHrozni

 

[Tolls]

Oh yes, no problem with the 200,000 figure (for Thermopylae).
It's the ones in the millions I have a problem with.

 

[pakeha]

We have to realize that any quest for precise and objective history accounts is a modern one. It was not the purpose of ancient historians to tell the objective story. Their purpose was to glorify whoever paid for their food. Hans

Good one, MRC_Hans.

 

[McHrozni]

Oh yes, no problem with the 200,000 figure (for Thermopylae).
It's the ones in the millions I have a problem with.

So do I

McHrozni

 

[gumboot]

It also always amazes me that armies would march 50,000 or a million at a time even thousands of years ago, with much less technology, no vehicles, pack animals limited more by geography, less options for long-lasting food, and smaller populations. How did ancient man afford to be able to war when it probably cost their societies quite a bit?

The bolded part above is probably the mistake you're making here. Ancient societies weren't necessarily as small as you might be led to believe. Rome had a population of ~1 million - giving it a denser population than most large cities today. In the mid 14th Century France had a population of over 20 million.

In addition, in these ancient societies it was typical for every single adult male to serve in the military. That might be from the age of 16 or even younger.

Thus, the actual number of military personnel an ancient society could mobilise would commonly dwarf the military capability of a modern country.

Australia - a country of 22 million - has a military force of less than 75,000. Two thousand years ago, Rome had less than 1/20th the population, but routinely fielded as many soldiers in a single battle.

And it's worth pointing out only a fraction of Australia's 75,000 troops would ever be expected to be in actual combat, whereas Rome's soldiers pretty much all fought.

The big difference is that in those days warfare was about conquest. Not only did you have free rein to steal whatever you wished from your foe, but more often than not you got to keep their entire territory. The benefits of warfare were therefore enormous. A single decisive victory could secure for your state vast regions of land with all of the resources they contained.

In contrast, since the 19th Century warfare has been less about conquest and more about solving political disputes between nations. In fact the laws of war today explicitly forbid victorious nations from seizing the wealth of their foes.

Thus the financial benefits of warfare today are pretty insignificant - even if you're fighting a country rich in a valuable resource such as, oh I dunno, oil?

 

[kookbreaker]

It may not be so, sorry to say, might just be a publicity stunt:

http://www.militarytrader.com/article/remains_of_persian_army/

 

[Dragoonster]

It may not be so, sorry to say, might just be a publicity stunt:

http://www.militarytrader.com/article/remains_of_persian_army/

Wow, according to that the brothers aren't archaeologists at all and have a history of making "mondo" videos. I don't think the other dubious tours have much of a bearing but yeah, doesn't look too good. And this statement by Hawass is damning, though I don't really trust him much either:

http://www.drhawass.com/blog/press-...gn=Feed:+Drhawasscom-New+(DrHawass.com+-+What

I need to inform the public that recent reports published in newspapers, news agencies and TV news announcing that “twin brothers Angelo and Alfredo Castiglioni have unearthed remains of the Persian army of Cambyses,” are unfounded and misleading.

The brothers are not heading any archaeological mission in Berenike Panchrysos at the small Bahrin Oasis near Siwa Oasis. This site has been excavated since 2002 by an Italian mission led by Dr. Paulo Gallo of Turin University. The Castiglioni brothers have not been granted permission by the SCA to excavate in Egypt, so anything they claim to find is not to be believed.

The Supreme Council of Antiquities has already informed the proper legal and security authorities in Egypt and are taking the necessary procedures.

Oh well, hope at least one actual archaeologist in the world actually investigates the "finds". If nothing else I'd like to find where those bones came from; if they were in situ or brought for a hoax.

Gumboot--thanks for that analysis about the population!