Good point, but even then if you apply the same logic as I did in my other post regarding food requirements to say the Battle of Kadesh where (once again according to Wikipedia) there were supposedly 20,000 troops on the Egyptian side... Now this was an army operating out of Egyptian territory in modern day Syria so they wouldn't have access to reliable supplies from a friendly (or at least co-operative) population.

20,000 troops equals 40,000lbs of bread, 3000lbs of meat, and 30,000L of drink per day. Plus fodder for the chariot horses and pack animals, plus probably an equal number of non-combatants who were also attached to the army.

Some of that could likely be made up via foraging and looting, but I find it highly unlikely that there would even be enough calories available in the vicinity of an army like that to actually keep them fed.

This speaks to a big problem with Wikipedia as a source. If you actually look at the citations for both the size of the Assyrian army quoted above as well as the size of the Egyptian force at Kadesh you'll see that in both instances they cite a book by Osprey publishing. Osprey is a great publisher in a lot of ways, but they aren't academic. Their primary market is wargamers and modelers. In fact, both books cited were written by a fellow by the name of Mark Healy. Not to disparage Mr. Healy but he has a masters degree in Political Theology. Not History or Near Eastern studies or Archeology or anything related to the field. He's a hobbyist, not an expert.

As a matter of fact, the 20,000 number looks like it is actually citing a website article from ancienthistorylists.com with an article titled "Top 14 decisive ancient battles"

The thing is that even primary sources from the period are likely unreliable. Between propaganda, translation issues, and transcription issues it is impossible to say with certainty how many men were actively under arms...

So, lets look at it from the other end. What is reasonable? Realistically it comes down to food. So the primary source of calories for all of those societies would have been bread. A 1lb loaf of whole wheat bread has about 1100 calories in it. An adult male needs between 2000 and 3000 calories/day. We'll assume a goal of around 2500 calories/day as necessary to keep your soldiers capable of actually fighting. Most of that will come from bread and it wouldn't be surprising if each soldier would have eaten about pounds of bread per day which would net them 2200 calories.

Also, I'm fully aware that Ramesses did not have access to modern food scientists, but the reality of it is, that he would have been aware of the fact that a starving army will not perform well, and as armies throughout history have discovered fucking around with food very quickly leads to finding out that bad things happen to said army.

Now, man cannot live on bread alone. Especially if you want them fit to fight. An oz of red meat has about 75 calories. we're short about 300 calories so that works out to about 4oz of red meat. You could probably cut this back a bit if you supplemented with other things, particularly veg but you also need to remember that unlike bread, meat spoils very quickly. This means salting or other pre refrigeration methods of food preservation or keeping your meat on the hoof for as long as possible which will in turn create a massive logistics train.

Also keeping in mind you need to provide your soldiers with something potable to drink and this likely meant watered down wine or beer. Again assuming reasonably strenuous physical activity in a hot climate like the fertile crescent you are looking at about 1.5 liters of water per day.

Now is when we break out the calculator. If you are fielding 1000 men this means that in order to keep them from starving you will need to provide 2000 loaves of bread plus about 150 lbs of meat and 1500 liters of drinkable water per day.

Now, if you are fielding 300,000 men... well you are looking at 600,000 loaves of bread, 75,000 lbs of meat, plus 450,000 liters of drinkable something.

That's a lot of food for a modern army to manage with shelf stable MRE's (only country in the world I would bank on being able to pull it off is the USA) nevermind the 'logistics' system of a pre-20th century army.

*Edit* fixed the numbers for meat requirements.

There is no way to feed and water 300,000 men and their animals at this time.

Its a ludicrous number.

You realize that the logistics and technology to feed and coordinate that many people didn't exist until modern times, right? 300K men means 2.1 Million gallons of water and 4.2 million pounds of food per week. You realize this is an insane amount of material to produce, store, and ship solely with man and horsepower, right?

Just doing napkin math: A Typical horse can walk 50 miles a day and carry 300 lbs. Assuming the military campaign is only 25 miles away from the city that has 10's of millions of pounds of food stored for war, you would need 5714 horses working 24/7 just to move the food and water to the soldiers. For every 25 miles farther, you need 5714 more horses. Also, these horses need food+water, gear and weapons need to be moved. So if you wanted to wage a war 100 miles away from your city, you needed more transport horses than all of the legions of the roman empire at peak power (22k or so cavalry).

Just crazy to think about, and then add that you need to feed these horses, and that you need to feed the cavalry horses as well. Don't know how much a horse eats, but i imagine its a lot.

Also, they didn't have large professional armies.

Up until the early 1900s, over 95% of all people worked in agriculture. Many of those men would help plant in the spring, go to war in the summer, harvest in the fall, and tend to their homes and farms in the winter.

[deleted]