https://www.thecollector.com/largest-armies-ancient-world/
Discuss...
Doesn't mention the Sui Dynasty's "million men army". How odd.
Not ancient enough?
Perhaps - but famous, and a long time ago!
https://www.thecollector.com/largest-armies-medieval-world/ - Tang, Song, and Ming, but still no mention of the Sui.
Quote from: Duncan Head on Mar 03, 2026, 10:56 AMhttps://www.thecollector.com/largest-armies-medieval-world/ - Tang, Song, and Ming, but still no mention of the Sui.
Perhaps they defined it as a large starving horde rather than an army?
Always interesting to see something like this. Brings back memories of arguing with Patrick about Xerxes invasion of Greece :)
Of course, articles like these are not the place for detailed argument but it would be quite interesting to know of the validation for some of these figures. Are they based on analysis of records, for example, or on propoganda statements? I suspect that the Chinese may indeed have detailed records - they seem to have been deeply passionate bureaucrats. But others, I wouldn't know.
And there is the question of what was available for deployment in the field, as opposed to holding defensive lines.
But equally, the Chinese annals keep getting a free pass for their massive claims, because no one is allowed to question nationalistic claims, whilst poor old Herodotos is constantly pilloried for possibly inflating Xerxes' numbers. Classic example is the claim by the Chinese that the Parthians sent a vast number of cavalry to escort a single diplomat from the eastern borders to Ctesiphon, many times the number they probably deployed against Crassus. Yeah, right...
Quote from: Erpingham on Mar 03, 2026, 12:13 PMAnd there is the question of what was available for deployment in the field, as opposed to holding defensive lines.
Yes indeed. What is an army?
1) Total manpower available for recruitment?
2) Total number of men actually in service at any one time?
3) Total number of men in one place, at one time, under one command, tasked with one mission?
These numbers naturally decrease, and decrease significantly, in size from one to the next. A very large number of 1) doesn't necessarily imply large numbers for 2) or 3), not least because there are very good reasons not to have a large number of men all in one place at one time.
Size of 1) is dependent on total population (which for most of the ancient world seems to be largely unknown) and recruitment systems (which vary enormously). Plus the whole angle of the article, "large armies of hundreds of thousands of men to defeat and destroy their enemies", is a bit odd, really, and somewhat depressing.