Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ThoDanII t1_ix6ez4p wrote

Reply to comment by WorthPlease in what was the population of ancient Mesopotamia? by Omastnar

the army must not necessarily deployed in one theatre less in one place

4

imperialus81 t1_ix6ls1t wrote

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"

17

vzierdfiant t1_ix6wuae wrote

Great points. Also, I think 30,000L is way too low. They are soldiers in Syria. Easily 4 liters per person per day. Moving 80,000L of water per day in animal hide skins using horses and people is a crazy logistical feat over any distance more than a couple miles. They didn't have water containers on wheels, right?

3

imperialus81 t1_ix6yby1 wrote

Realistically it's all pretty low. Would they need more water? For sure. But 1.5L would likely keep them alive, especially if they were campaigning during the cooler, non growing seasons which is the only way you'd ever get your numbers to even approach 100 or 300 thousand as you would be relying on your farmers as the bulk of those troops.

The bar I set is not 'well fed'. 2500 calories is what I would consider to be survival level given the physical expectations of an army on the march and in battle. For reference, a modern American 24 hour pack of MRE's contains between 3500 and 4000 calories. Likewise, water I estimated at a low end, since it is quite likely that an army on the move would almost certainly follow a river, where they could access flowing water that could be used for cooking and even be somewhat 'purified' for drinking through the addition of alcohol or vinegar.

3

vzierdfiant t1_ix78rok wrote

100% would need more. Soldiers are marching, building camps, hauling gear, etc. Hard work, and tiring, would need at least 4 L per day and 3000+ calories imo, unless you want your army to be emaciated and exhausted in a couple of weeks.

4