Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I think the Macedonian army has been reliably estimated at between 35 and 50,000. The point was that the Persian army was significantly larger, outnumbering the Macedonian at up to 4 or 5 to 1 in cavalry for example at Issus and Gaugamela.
The Persian army was very large partly because the point was not to fight but to frighten with a large display of force. The expectation was an enemy would be intimidated and turn back or seek peace. The problem the Persians always had with Greek armies was they chose to fight and that showed up the weaknesses in the Persian order of battle.
In some ways it was a huge culture clash.
I think the Macedonian army has been reliably estimated at between 35 and 50,000. The point was that the Persian army was significantly larger, outnumbering the Macedonian at up to 4 or 5 to 1 in cavalry for example at Issus and Gaugamela.
The Persian army was very large partly because the point was not to fight but to frighten with a large display of force. The expectation was an enemy would be intimidated and turn back or seek peace. The problem the Persians always had with Greek armies was they chose to fight and that showed up the weaknesses in the Persian order of battle.
In some ways it was a huge culture clash.

And yeah I know most tribesmen weren't that impressive fighters vs an organized army, but still... It's hard to imagine how in those times with those means of transport and communication they managed to field and feed such huge armies, and the upkeep!!
Btw how can you positively estimate an army number? There aren't enough archaeological finds to extrapolate that. Maybe a good terrain study might do the trick, I don't know
Comment