https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/sep/29/why-am-i-obsessed-with-chinas-ancient-golden-age-i-took-my-daughter-on-a-trip-to-find-out
They say men in Europe think about the Roman Empire all the time (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/sep/19/the-roman-empire-why-men-just-cant-stop-thinking-about-it) - is this the Eastern equivalent?
There are circles within the ultra-nationalist denizens of the internet in China who have been arguing vehemently that the Tang Dynasty never existed (because it was not founded by Chinese). The Chinese Government have stepped in to denounce these theories!
Doesn't sound like he or his daughter had much fun. I did a 2 1/2 week visit to Rome end last year early this year and we saw everything. Apologies to all Chinese, but Rome knocks Xi'an flat for history, culture and architectural beauty.
Quote from: Keraunos on Sep 29, 2026, 10:26 AMwho have been arguing vehemently that the Tang Dynasty never existed
What do they fill the time period with instead?
Men think about the Roman Empire because it didn't actually come to an end in 476 AD. The Western half did, and the barbarian kings there still owed a nominal allegiance to the Eastern court - coins with the emperor's image were being minted in the Visigothic kingdom until well into the 6th century. The Eastern Empire remained the premier Christian power until the battle of Manzikert, so its cultural influence dominated western Europe, a bit like how American cultural influence has dominated the West (and rest of the world) since WW2. It was only from the 13th century onwards that Western art began to take a different path from Eastern iconography. Even after the Eastern Empire began to fade away, the Holy Roman Empire tried to emulate it, more or less, and kept the imperial ideal alive - one supreme Christian ruler who would keep Christian lands safe from infidels and heretics.
This is an AI search on the military might of Charlemagne's Frankish empire compared to the Eastern Roman Empire in 800AD: The Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire was militarily more powerful and sophisticated than the Empire of Charlemagne in 800 AD, possessing a professional standing army, advanced naval power, and centralized logistics, whereas Charlemagne's strength relied on seasonal feudal levies suited only for local hegemony in Western Europe.
And the Holy Roman Empire compared to the Eastern Roman Empire: The Eastern Roman Empire (also known as the Byzantine Empire) was significantly more powerful militarily in 1000 AD than the Holy Roman Empire. Around 1000 AD, the Eastern Roman Empire was at one of its historical peaks under the reign of Emperor Basil II (often called the "Bulgar-Slayer"). In contrast, the Holy Roman Empire under Emperor Otto III was a decentralized collection of regional duchies and territories.
We've been living under the shadow of imperial Rome until well into the Middle Ages.
I'm not sure the musing of Swedish influencers is a sound statistical basis to state European men think about the Roman Empire all the time. Local young men seem more drawn to the Vandals.
Quote from: Erpingham on Sep 29, 2026, 11:54 AMI'm not sure the musing of Swedish influencers is a sound statistical basis to state European men think about the Roman Empire all the time. Local young men seem more drawn to the Vandals.
I'd say they're drawn to the Space Marines (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoCW8lxTPBU).
Quote from: Erpingham on Sep 29, 2026, 11:19 AMQuote from: Keraunos on Sep 29, 2026, 10:26 AMwho have been arguing vehemently that the Tang Dynasty never existed
What do they fill the time period with instead?
"The basis of Qiao Yu's claim is that the succeeding Song dynasty actually began far earlier than traditionally accepted, therefore canceling out the Tang. The Song dynasty was of ethnic Han origin." (https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/19/style/china-tang-dynasty-never-existed-hoax-intl-hnk)
A friend was visiting me when I was in the middle of painting up my 15mm T'ang army. His Chinese wife noticed the figures and applauded my selection of an army from her homeland. Despite being neither a wargamer nor an historian, she instantly recognised them as T'ang, which rather impressed me.
As a wargamer I'm interested in how a T'ang army would match up against, say, an imperial Roman army of the 2nd century or a Macedonian army under Alexander. Also against an Indian army of the era of Alexander (a really big Indian army, not Porus' relatively small force).
For fun I tried AI, comparing a T'ang army and a Byzantine army of the 10th century. I got this (https://www.google.com/search?q=was+a+T%27ang+army+better+than+a+byzantine+army+of+the+10th+century%3F&client=firefox-b-d&hs=dX3V&sca_esv=a6ed821c7d209103&sxsrf=APpeQntwDuQLu3EtK4LZlWTjJ1WurAB0_w%3A1790698612206&udm=50&fbs=ABfTbFVyMZGZf1hfvX9uKjN_-G8c4u0nXx4bEIpwm1lnNH832a9BVCEiB2iPJNekNderQwJGZIG7YID1eBGNWasq2rzBIURiSCrdR156KVg_RXap7nymj7qwomXHj_SiILyyw7Ta9Q-KE-MaWxqo7jHrqQyEW5GYd4Al-Ng6PS506BSWStYgV2V047447UIBRUyB2GwDFWjsD_zdq4DE4Jd0AqJizczSNg&vsint=&aep=1&ntc=1&cs=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiznbiVmJSXAxUPUUEAHYEgBuQQ2J8OegQIFBAD&biw=1760&bih=826&dpr=1.09&mstk=AUtExfCWpcDdQjeDrJaz_Ru2pOWg4gf8s-UqEQxMmAyW7RHp41rdvnfKwdtLtGbUF5WQ0m0hOQKpbRCyaYSgeNhRIWkVWP9LR2P0YvIhAWjraaV8XjTAQEAnwZkAebjgbHz4Z9oig5lRxPlbrwm27kbzn4Zb7zQiXmKqrKYOwwxr7fuDmWCSxTQensCblEGpewpmZAfBIcGhYBBf2u32oktnBzBhINRxQUvhYAZ5EcFDZ5lbWTYoLVtYS7uzvArGQjvqdsU-1fuhr4SDmBqZdnvjRDAX2EeNfJ7N54bEB_wdI7-ZXf4ydZzDfhfLCDK2vTFk3ztcE4o_UByMEw&csuir=1&mtid=xuS7avCeBZ-L_fwPza2LqAc). Input anyone?
Quote from: Duncan Head on Sep 29, 2026, 12:45 PMQuote from: Erpingham on Sep 29, 2026, 11:19 AMQuote from: Keraunos on Sep 29, 2026, 10:26 AMwho have been arguing vehemently that the Tang Dynasty never existed
What do they fill the time period with instead?
"The basis of Qiao Yu's claim is that the succeeding Song dynasty actually began far earlier than traditionally accepted, therefore canceling out the Tang. The Song dynasty was of ethnic Han origin." (https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/19/style/china-tang-dynasty-never-existed-hoax-intl-hnk)
I must admit I was intrigued by the whole idea that the tang never existed when I first heard about it. More from what it might tell us about attitudes in Modern China than it would about the Tang/Song period :)
Personally, I think the T'ang would grossly outnumber any of the opponents you might be thinking of. I mean, the side with the big battalions generally wins. :P
Quote from: Nick Harbud on Sep 29, 2026, 03:19 PMPersonally, I think the T'ang would grossly outnumber any of the opponents you might be thinking of. I mean, the side with the big battalions generally wins. :P
Tell that to Alexander. 😏
Quote from: Justin Swanton on Sep 29, 2026, 02:45 PMFor fun I tried AI, comparing a T'ang army and a Byzantine army of the 10th century. I got this (https://www.google.com/search?q=was+a+T%27ang+army+better+than+a+byzantine+army+of+the+10th+century%3F&client=firefox-b-d&hs=dX3V&sca_esv=a6ed821c7d209103&sxsrf=APpeQntwDuQLu3EtK4LZlWTjJ1WurAB0_w%3A1790698612206&udm=50&fbs=ABfTbFVyMZGZf1hfvX9uKjN_-G8c4u0nXx4bEIpwm1lnNH832a9BVCEiB2iPJNekNderQwJGZIG7YID1eBGNWasq2rzBIURiSCrdR156KVg_RXap7nymj7qwomXHj_SiILyyw7Ta9Q-KE-MaWxqo7jHrqQyEW5GYd4Al-Ng6PS506BSWStYgV2V047447UIBRUyB2GwDFWjsD_zdq4DE4Jd0AqJizczSNg&vsint=&aep=1&ntc=1&cs=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiznbiVmJSXAxUPUUEAHYEgBuQQ2J8OegQIFBAD&biw=1760&bih=826&dpr=1.09&mstk=AUtExfCWpcDdQjeDrJaz_Ru2pOWg4gf8s-UqEQxMmAyW7RHp41rdvnfKwdtLtGbUF5WQ0m0hOQKpbRCyaYSgeNhRIWkVWP9LR2P0YvIhAWjraaV8XjTAQEAnwZkAebjgbHz4Z9oig5lRxPlbrwm27kbzn4Zb7zQiXmKqrKYOwwxr7fuDmWCSxTQensCblEGpewpmZAfBIcGhYBBf2u32oktnBzBhINRxQUvhYAZ5EcFDZ5lbWTYoLVtYS7uzvArGQjvqdsU-1fuhr4SDmBqZdnvjRDAX2EeNfJ7N54bEB_wdI7-ZXf4ydZzDfhfLCDK2vTFk3ztcE4o_UByMEw&csuir=1&mtid=xuS7avCeBZ-L_fwPza2LqAc). Input anyone?
The AI needs to up its "research" as the bow not the crossbow was the main missile weapon of the Tang infantry.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on Sep 29, 2026, 04:37 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on Sep 29, 2026, 02:45 PMFor fun I tried AI, comparing a T'ang army and a Byzantine army of the 10th century. I got this (https://www.google.com/search?q=was+a+T%27ang+army+better+than+a+byzantine+army+of+the+10th+century%3F&client=firefox-b-d&hs=dX3V&sca_esv=a6ed821c7d209103&sxsrf=APpeQntwDuQLu3EtK4LZlWTjJ1WurAB0_w%3A1790698612206&udm=50&fbs=ABfTbFVyMZGZf1hfvX9uKjN_-G8c4u0nXx4bEIpwm1lnNH832a9BVCEiB2iPJNekNderQwJGZIG7YID1eBGNWasq2rzBIURiSCrdR156KVg_RXap7nymj7qwomXHj_SiILyyw7Ta9Q-KE-MaWxqo7jHrqQyEW5GYd4Al-Ng6PS506BSWStYgV2V047447UIBRUyB2GwDFWjsD_zdq4DE4Jd0AqJizczSNg&vsint=&aep=1&ntc=1&cs=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiznbiVmJSXAxUPUUEAHYEgBuQQ2J8OegQIFBAD&biw=1760&bih=826&dpr=1.09&mstk=AUtExfCWpcDdQjeDrJaz_Ru2pOWg4gf8s-UqEQxMmAyW7RHp41rdvnfKwdtLtGbUF5WQ0m0hOQKpbRCyaYSgeNhRIWkVWP9LR2P0YvIhAWjraaV8XjTAQEAnwZkAebjgbHz4Z9oig5lRxPlbrwm27kbzn4Zb7zQiXmKqrKYOwwxr7fuDmWCSxTQensCblEGpewpmZAfBIcGhYBBf2u32oktnBzBhINRxQUvhYAZ5EcFDZ5lbWTYoLVtYS7uzvArGQjvqdsU-1fuhr4SDmBqZdnvjRDAX2EeNfJ7N54bEB_wdI7-ZXf4ydZzDfhfLCDK2vTFk3ztcE4o_UByMEw&csuir=1&mtid=xuS7avCeBZ-L_fwPza2LqAc). Input anyone?
The AI needs to up its "research" as the bow not the crossbow was the main missile weapon of the Tang infantry.
There's the problem with AI. It absolutely makes it up too often.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on Sep 29, 2026, 02:45 PMFor fun I tried AI, comparing a T'ang army and a Byzantine army of the 10th century. I got this (https://www.google.com/search?q=was+a+T%27ang+army+better+than+a+byzantine+army+of+the+10th+century%3F&client=firefox-b-d&hs=dX3V&sca_esv=a6ed821c7d209103&sxsrf=APpeQntwDuQLu3EtK4LZlWTjJ1WurAB0_w%3A1790698612206&udm=50&fbs=ABfTbFVyMZGZf1hfvX9uKjN_-G8c4u0nXx4bEIpwm1lnNH832a9BVCEiB2iPJNekNderQwJGZIG7YID1eBGNWasq2rzBIURiSCrdR156KVg_RXap7nymj7qwomXHj_SiILyyw7Ta9Q-KE-MaWxqo7jHrqQyEW5GYd4Al-Ng6PS506BSWStYgV2V047447UIBRUyB2GwDFWjsD_zdq4DE4Jd0AqJizczSNg&vsint=&aep=1&ntc=1&cs=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiznbiVmJSXAxUPUUEAHYEgBuQQ2J8OegQIFBAD&biw=1760&bih=826&dpr=1.09&mstk=AUtExfCWpcDdQjeDrJaz_Ru2pOWg4gf8s-UqEQxMmAyW7RHp41rdvnfKwdtLtGbUF5WQ0m0hOQKpbRCyaYSgeNhRIWkVWP9LR2P0YvIhAWjraaV8XjTAQEAnwZkAebjgbHz4Z9oig5lRxPlbrwm27kbzn4Zb7zQiXmKqrKYOwwxr7fuDmWCSxTQensCblEGpewpmZAfBIcGhYBBf2u32oktnBzBhINRxQUvhYAZ5EcFDZ5lbWTYoLVtYS7uzvArGQjvqdsU-1fuhr4SDmBqZdnvjRDAX2EeNfJ7N54bEB_wdI7-ZXf4ydZzDfhfLCDK2vTFk3ztcE4o_UByMEw&csuir=1&mtid=xuS7avCeBZ-L_fwPza2LqAc). Input anyone?
You want David A Graff's
The Eurasian Way of War. Military Practice in Seventh-Century China and Byzantium (2016) (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eurasian-Way-War-Seventh-Century-Byzantium/dp/0415460344/), which is one of the sources the AI is drawing on. The two have a lot in common.
Quote from: Duncan Head on Sep 29, 2026, 05:12 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on Sep 29, 2026, 02:45 PMFor fun I tried AI, comparing a T'ang army and a Byzantine army of the 10th century. I got this (https://www.google.com/search?q=was+a+T%27ang+army+better+than+a+byzantine+army+of+the+10th+century%3F&client=firefox-b-d&hs=dX3V&sca_esv=a6ed821c7d209103&sxsrf=APpeQntwDuQLu3EtK4LZlWTjJ1WurAB0_w%3A1790698612206&udm=50&fbs=ABfTbFVyMZGZf1hfvX9uKjN_-G8c4u0nXx4bEIpwm1lnNH832a9BVCEiB2iPJNekNderQwJGZIG7YID1eBGNWasq2rzBIURiSCrdR156KVg_RXap7nymj7qwomXHj_SiILyyw7Ta9Q-KE-MaWxqo7jHrqQyEW5GYd4Al-Ng6PS506BSWStYgV2V047447UIBRUyB2GwDFWjsD_zdq4DE4Jd0AqJizczSNg&vsint=&aep=1&ntc=1&cs=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiznbiVmJSXAxUPUUEAHYEgBuQQ2J8OegQIFBAD&biw=1760&bih=826&dpr=1.09&mstk=AUtExfCWpcDdQjeDrJaz_Ru2pOWg4gf8s-UqEQxMmAyW7RHp41rdvnfKwdtLtGbUF5WQ0m0hOQKpbRCyaYSgeNhRIWkVWP9LR2P0YvIhAWjraaV8XjTAQEAnwZkAebjgbHz4Z9oig5lRxPlbrwm27kbzn4Zb7zQiXmKqrKYOwwxr7fuDmWCSxTQensCblEGpewpmZAfBIcGhYBBf2u32oktnBzBhINRxQUvhYAZ5EcFDZ5lbWTYoLVtYS7uzvArGQjvqdsU-1fuhr4SDmBqZdnvjRDAX2EeNfJ7N54bEB_wdI7-ZXf4ydZzDfhfLCDK2vTFk3ztcE4o_UByMEw&csuir=1&mtid=xuS7avCeBZ-L_fwPza2LqAc). Input anyone?
You want David A Graff's The Eurasian Way of War. Military Practice in Seventh-Century China and Byzantium (2016) (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eurasian-Way-War-Seventh-Century-Byzantium/dp/0415460344/), which is one of the sources the AI is drawing on. The two have a lot in common.
....and? T'ang or Byzantium?
Quote from: Nick Harbud on Sep 29, 2026, 03:19 PMPersonally, I think the T'ang would grossly outnumber any of the opponents you might be thinking of. I mean, the side with the big battalions generally wins. :P
The impression I get from my son (a graduate student of Chinese history with deep interest in military affairs) is that the Chinese records of military actions and the numbers involved in them are deeply unreliable and implausible. Just because pre-modern China was a bigger, more populous place than most other powers did not mean that it was exempt from the same logistical limitations that constrained the size of armies that could be put into the field or the duration that they could be maintained once gathered.
Quote from: Keraunos on Sep 29, 2026, 10:49 PMQuote from: Nick Harbud on Sep 29, 2026, 03:19 PMPersonally, I think the T'ang would grossly outnumber any of the opponents you might be thinking of. I mean, the side with the big battalions generally wins. :P
The impression I get from my son (a graduate student of Chinese history with deep interest in military affairs) is that the Chinese records of military actions and the numbers involved in them are deeply unreliable and implausible. Just because pre-modern China was a bigger, more populous place than most other powers did not mean that it was exempt from the same logistical limitations that constrained the size of armies that could be put into the field or the duration that they could be maintained once gathered.
Which resurrects the Achaemenid Persian army debate (any takers? ;D ). Primary sources from China, India and the West all speak of really big armies (in the hundreds of thousands) and all are dismissed by modern scholars based purely on the assumption that armies in Antiquity travelled and were supplied like 19th century European armies, i.e. the armies travelled entirely by road and carried all their supplies with them. But if you look at the primary sources they make clear that large armies could be supplied by pre-prepared food dumps or by sea and that armies travelled cross-country,
not by road. The limitations on their size imposed by contemporary scholars then disappear.
And I thought the Sui dynasty never fell, because I had the army in 15mm. Hell will freeze over before I acknowlege those Tang usurpers!
Quote from: Justin Swanton on Sep 30, 2026, 05:51 AMQuote from: Keraunos on Sep 29, 2026, 10:49 PMQuote from: Nick Harbud on Sep 29, 2026, 03:19 PMPersonally, I think the T'ang would grossly outnumber any of the opponents you might be thinking of. I mean, the side with the big battalions generally wins. :P
The impression I get from my son (a graduate student of Chinese history with deep interest in military affairs) is that the Chinese records of military actions and the numbers involved in them are deeply unreliable and implausible. Just because pre-modern China was a bigger, more populous place than most other powers did not mean that it was exempt from the same logistical limitations that constrained the size of armies that could be put into the field or the duration that they could be maintained once gathered.
Which resurrects the Achaemenid Persian army debate (any takers? ;D ). Primary sources from China, India and the West all speak of really big armies (in the hundreds of thousands) and all are dismissed by modern scholars based purely on the assumption that armies in Antiquity travelled and were supplied like 19th century European armies, i.e. the armies travelled entirely by road and carried all their supplies with them. But if you look at the primary sources they make clear that large armies could be supplied by pre-prepared food dumps or by sea and that armies travelled cross-country, not by road. The limitations on their size imposed by contemporary scholars then disappear.
My understanding is that modern scholars do not make assumptions that ancient armies travelled by a modern type of road network or were incapable of creating supply depots. Rather, they are aware that, among other things, in the pre-modern age (i.e pre Haber-Bosch nitrogen fixation and Mendel's opening of the doors to dramatic improvement in ability to select crops for improved yields) the surplus capacity of agricultural systems that could be drawn on by armies in a given region plus the peasants reserves that they could steal if needs be were not adequate to sustain the size of armies that ancient records claim to have been fielded with great regularity. This is not to mention the literary tropes/subtle hints that encouraged ancient historians to increase the armies of their master's enemies much as modern fishermen increase the size of the fish they nearly caught.
Quote from: Keraunos on Sep 30, 2026, 08:20 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on Sep 30, 2026, 05:51 AMQuote from: Keraunos on Sep 29, 2026, 10:49 PMQuote from: Nick Harbud on Sep 29, 2026, 03:19 PMPersonally, I think the T'ang would grossly outnumber any of the opponents you might be thinking of. I mean, the side with the big battalions generally wins. :P
The impression I get from my son (a graduate student of Chinese history with deep interest in military affairs) is that the Chinese records of military actions and the numbers involved in them are deeply unreliable and implausible. Just because pre-modern China was a bigger, more populous place than most other powers did not mean that it was exempt from the same logistical limitations that constrained the size of armies that could be put into the field or the duration that they could be maintained once gathered.
Which resurrects the Achaemenid Persian army debate (any takers? ;D ). Primary sources from China, India and the West all speak of really big armies (in the hundreds of thousands) and all are dismissed by modern scholars based purely on the assumption that armies in Antiquity travelled and were supplied like 19th century European armies, i.e. the armies travelled entirely by road and carried all their supplies with them. But if you look at the primary sources they make clear that large armies could be supplied by pre-prepared food dumps or by sea and that armies travelled cross-country, not by road. The limitations on their size imposed by contemporary scholars then disappear.
My understanding is that modern scholars do not make assumptions that ancient armies travelled by a modern type of road network or were incapable of creating supply depots. Rather, they are aware that, among other things, in the pre-modern age (i.e pre Haber-Bosch nitrogen fixation and Mendel's opening of the doors to dramatic improvement in ability to select crops for improved yields) the surplus capacity of agricultural systems that could be drawn on by armies in a given region plus the peasants reserves that they could steal if needs be were not adequate to sustain the size of armies that ancient records claim to have been fielded with great regularity. This is not to mention the literary tropes/subtle hints that encouraged ancient historians to increase the armies of their master's enemies much as modern fishermen increase the size of the fish they nearly caught.
We covered this in the Persian monster thread (and somewhere else if I remember correctly). One needs to keep in mind that you don't need a huge surplus of crop production to support massive armies since the number of mouths the state had to feed was exactly the same during peace or wartime. What you needed to do was move the food to where it could supply a huge army on the march and we examined how that could be done (well, examined/scoffed at).
As regards literary exaggerations, that's true but not by orders of magnitude. If the real army size was, say 60 000 men, you might exaggerate it up to 100,000 but not to 1,000,000. That's no longer propaganda - it's stupidity. Furthermore historians in the past did show more concern for the facts than perhaps the moderns give them credit for. Especially someone like Herodotus who didn't really have a dog in the fight.
Just a slightly deranged, off-topic thought...
...How does one write 1,000,000 in Roman numerals when the largest numeral value = 1,000? I mean, can we rely upon the scribes (or their copyists) to put exactly 1,000 Ms onto the page correctly?
Perhaps all the learned ones recorded such things in Greek myriad notation? Thus,
Greek 1234567.png
Quote from: Nick Harbud on Sep 30, 2026, 09:25 AMJust a slightly deranged, off-topic thought...
...How does one write 1,000,000 in Roman numerals when the largest numeral value = 1,000? I mean, can we rely upon the scribes (or their copyists) to put exactly 1,000 Ms onto the page correctly?
Perhaps all the learned ones recorded such things in Greek myriad notation? Thus,
Greek 1234567.png
Apparently (never had to think about it before) a million in Latin notation is M̅ or M̲. Two bars above or below the M is a billion.
When Caesar claimed that eight thousand cavalry and a quarter million infantry marched to the relief of Alesia, he expressed this as equitum VIII milibus et peditum circiter CCL,* painfully literally "of horsemen 8 thousands and of footmen circa 250".
I therefore suspect he'd expressed one million simply as M milibus "a thousand thousands".
Greek numerals were used for serious mathematics, but not, AFAIK, in "normal" texts. Justin's over- or underline is a Renaissance invention, acc'd WP. ETA: Or from the Late Republic acc'd another WP page. So maybe it was known to Caesar after all, but if so he evidently didn't feel like using it in this passage.
* De Bello Gallico 7.76
Quotetherefore suspect he'd expressed one million simply as M milibus "a thousand thousands".
To be really stuffy, he'd write a million as
M mil(l)ia. Accusative plural and all that. 8)
Didn't we comprehensively deal with this in the Persian giant army thread, which took longer than a Chinese dynasty to resolve?
One of the problems we faced was the uncritical reading of ancient historical accounts. Advocates failed to allow for social forces which shaped accounts and the literary conventions in play. Now, I know virtually nothing of these factors in Chinese society, but I doubt we can assume the authors were pursuing literal truth in their numbers or taking to the field to individually count soldiers.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on Sep 30, 2026, 11:12 AMQuotetherefore suspect he'd expressed one million simply as M milibus "a thousand thousands".
To be really stuffy, he'd write a million as M mil(l)ia. Accusative plural and all that. 8)
Well, he'd write it in the case appropriate to the context. The actual Caesarian numeral I quoted was in the dative-ablative plural, so I used the same form - the one he'd used if he'd wanted to say one million rather than 250 thousand there.
Quote from: Erpingham on Sep 30, 2026, 11:16 AMDidn't we comprehensively deal with this in the Persian giant army thread, which took longer than a Chinese dynasty to resolve?
Oh we did, and didn't resolve anything.
Quote from: Erpingham on Sep 30, 2026, 11:16 AMOne of the problems we faced was the uncritical reading of ancient historical accounts. Advocates failed to allow for social forces which shaped accounts and the literary conventions in play. Now, I know virtually nothing of these factors in Chinese society, but I doubt we can assume the authors were pursuing literal truth in their numbers or taking to the field to individually count soldiers.
Which is one thing we didn't resolve: if authors in antiquity are all consistently out by
an order of magnitude (or two orders of magnitude depending on modern corrected estimates) in their figures for army sizes from the Fertile Crescent to China, then they can't be trusted at all for anything else they affirm. Herodotus describes how Xerxes used an enclosure that could hold 10,000 men a time to calculate the size of his army, but if that's entirely invented then you might as well toss all of Herodotus into the wastepaper basket. Or maybe treat him as an alt history novelist.
My own approach has been to start by accepting the figures then seeing if there are any serious practical objections to them. So far I haven't found any.
But let's not resurrect that thread. It'll just be a rehash of the old arguments.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on Sep 30, 2026, 11:29 AMHerodotus describes how Xerxes used an enclosure that could hold 10,000 men a time to calculate the size of his army, but if that's entirely invented then you might as well toss all of Herodotus into the wastepaper basket.
Which is one of those areas where we differ, but as you said, let's not do it again. I think the China experts should argue this one out.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on Sep 30, 2026, 05:51 AMBut if you look at the primary sources they make clear that large armies could be supplied by pre-prepared food dumps or by sea and that armies travelled cross-country, not by road.
I haven't read the Persian army thread, and the applicability of this will obviously vary wildly depending on both time and place, but the assumption within Byzantine military treatises at least is that army movement is done on the existing route network for a number of reasons. Ensuring no one gets lost by being able to place signs at junctions, the ability to get good intelligence on the state of a road, the fact that they are more amenable to wheeled transport and the likelihood that gradients are more friendly than open countryside are just a few. Terrain in Anatolia can be quite rough and the route network was extensive, having been developed over centuries so I wouldn't extrapolate too widely, but it is certainly one context in which open-country movement was not the norm. Of course, that depends on if one believes that the treatises were written as practical guides for army leaders, which isn't an uncontested notion.
Apologies if this has been done to death before.
Quote from: PhilM on Sep 30, 2026, 11:42 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on Sep 30, 2026, 05:51 AMBut if you look at the primary sources they make clear that large armies could be supplied by pre-prepared food dumps or by sea and that armies travelled cross-country, not by road.
I haven't read the Persian army thread, and the applicability of this will obviously vary wildly depending on both time and place, but the assumption within Byzantine military treatises at least is that army movement is done on the existing route network for a number of reasons. Ensuring no one gets lost by being able to place signs at junctions, the ability to get good intelligence on the state of a road, the fact that they are more amenable to wheeled transport and the likelihood that gradients are more friendly than open countryside are just a few. Terrain in Anatolia can be quite rough and the route network was extensive, having been developed over centuries so I wouldn't extrapolate too widely, but it is certainly one context in which open-country movement was not the norm. Of course, that depends on if one believes that the treatises were written as practical guides for army leaders, which isn't an uncontested notion.
Apologies if this has been done to death before.
Ah, but there you go. It's about not getting lost, following the easiest terrain and facilitating things for the wheeled baggage. Not specifically about the entire army marching on a road. Furthermore, a Byzantine army on the march numbered between 10,000 and 30,000 men if I'm not mistaken. Not the hundreds of thousands under consideration here. Wheeled baggage could stick to a road or track for more speed but I'm pretty certain the men/horses marched cross-country alongside it. Vegetius describes how Roman infantry were trained to march cross country in any terrain, with no mention of roads. The manuals all describe the formations a body of men could take whilst on the march and they were all far wider than any road. Also the positions the troops could take relative to the baggage and they were not on the road. Even in column most of the men would have to march off-road as a typical column that could convert into an instant line (exhibit the Spartan mora) was wider than any road or track.
But, yeah, we've all made up our minds about this a long time ago. You might want to read the Achaemenid thread (https://forum.soa.org.uk/index.php?topic=3327.0) and decide what you think of it. (gosh, it's 8 years old!)
Having said I would leave this, I would note that what the ancients understood as a road and what modern Europeans do may not be the same thing. Just focussing on the made up narrow roadway may be unwise. Actual width of usable space on a route could be terrain dependant.
Thanks for the link. In the context of what became a 75-page thread, that second post brought a wry smile. It will take me a while to get the time to read the whole thing.
Absent any specific context, I suspect it's hard to get much more accurate than "sometimes yes, somtimes no, probably". Plenty of interest in those specific contexts though.
Quote from: PhilM on Sep 30, 2026, 02:13 PMIt will take me a while to get the time to read the whole thing.
It should be a right of passage on the forum to read it, after which members shudder and say "Never again" :)
Quote from: Nick Harbud on Sep 29, 2026, 03:19 PMPersonally, I think the T'ang would grossly outnumber any of the opponents you might be thinking of. I mean, the side with the big battalions generally wins. :P
So, you'd know if you'd been T'ang-oed?
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Sep 30, 2026, 03:13 PMQuote from: Nick Harbud on Sep 29, 2026, 03:19 PMPersonally, I think the T'ang would grossly outnumber any of the opponents you might be thinking of. I mean, the side with the big battalions generally wins. :P
So, you'd know if you'd been T'ang-oed?
::)
;D
Haven't seen you for a while Mike. Nice to know you're still on good form :)
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Sep 30, 2026, 03:13 PMQuote from: Nick Harbud on Sep 29, 2026, 03:19 PMPersonally, I think the T'ang would grossly outnumber any of the opponents you might be thinking of. I mean, the side with the big battalions generally wins. :P
So, you'd know if you'd been T'ang-oed?
That sour tang is unmistakable.
Quote from: Erpingham on Sep 30, 2026, 04:52 PMHaven't seen you for a while Mike. Nice to know you're still on good form :)
You are too kind! I'm sure I'll tire you soon enough...