Re: Innumeracy and exaggerated ancient numbers
- From: greymaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 23 Mar 2006 14:05:34 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:39:21 GMT, Matt Giwer wrote:
No ancient general is depicted as personally leading one million men
into one battle. Battles between armies of 150,000 to 300,000 were quite
common. Its only 3 of 4 football stadiums full.
Which makes my case to suggest armies of even 150,000 are credible.
With all the benefits of modern technology and logistics and food preservation
and all the rest the US has fewer than that in Iraq. Now have them living off of
the land in hostile territory where the local native population is a small
multiple of that number.
Most analyses of ancient battles reduce the numbers enormously. The US
army in Iraq is not relevent, soldiers in those ancient Armys lived on
a pice of bread a day, (No BlubbaBubbas), and once the ancient armies
started to march, pollute their water sources, disease would strike,
and the majority of the soldiers would die of disease, down to the
time of the American Civil War.. Add in sensible desertions, and one
would need ten men starting out to get one in the battle line when
needed. One Russian Army started off to attack the Turks in what is now
the Ukraine, and disappeared before they got there. The Roman legions
were effective because they were organized and had good hygine.
--
greymaus
Just Another Grumpy Old Man
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Typhus and the 5th BC Athenian Plague
- Next by Date: Re: Teacher has right to Hitler comments
- Previous by thread: One of worlds oldest boats discovered in Eastern Afrcian Desert.
- Next by thread: Moyta Sicily remained populated after claimed Grecan destruction
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
